Are you currently sitting on a back catalog of compositions that you've recorded over the years? Are they doing anything but sitting on a hard drive? Your music deserves to have a life of its own, even if you can't pull yourself away from ProTools for even a moment. So, why not put those songs to good use and start seeking avenues to license the material?
Last night I had an opportunity to attend a workshop at the New York chapter office of The Recording Academy titled "Music Supervising and Licensing in Today's World."
Linda Lorence Critelli (VP Writer Publisher Relations, SESAC, Inc.) moderated the panel. Panelists included: Jim Black (President, Clearsongs), Keith D'Arcy (Senior VP, C.O.R.E., EMI Music Publishing), Suzanne Hilleary (Founder/President, WacBiz), and Ed Gerrard (Impact Music Management).
I'm always eager to learn new things, or hear how other people work, so I love going to conferences and workshops. And even if you're already an expert in your field, then there are always plenty of new people to meet and schmooze, provided you're up to the task. Sometimes the most useful information you come away with maybe delivered by the person sitting right next to you, not necessarily the person on stage.
NEW THING I LEARNED:
If you want to be a music supervisor rather than a composer/songwriter, you do need to know how to clear a piece of music. Sounds pretty basic right? But back in 1996, when I selected 3000 tracks for the NBC Olympics and cataloged them by Sport and Mood, all I had to do was search, identify, catalog and indicate edit points. I didn't personally need to execute the paperwork on all that stuff. Today, I certainly would, or someone on my team, or a business partner, would.
In other words your credentials need to be more substantial than a big music collection.
Yeah, it's true, we all gotta work for a living.
INFORMATION I KNEW BUT GOOD TO HEAR AGAIN AND AGAIN:
If you're on the creative side, and your aim is to get your music placed more than once, make sure it's easy to license and that there aren't any surprises attached to your work. Music Supervisors like it if you own and control your own master. And you've heard this before: Clear your samples! –Or don't use any sonic elements that aren't hand crafted and completely original to you.
Also, if you're using live musicians, make sure they sign work-for-hire agreements before they leave the session, not to mention that all and any co-composition /co-arrangement issues are well defined before you begin submitting material and calling it your own.
You may think that sneaking in an uncleared sample isn't going to hurt anyone. I've witnessed several composers use uncleared samples left and right, like sometimes for every sound on every track. In fact, I was standing next to two of them when each got served with a Cease and Desist letter for infringement. Nothing like a lawsuit to drag down the whole artsy vibe, man. So, just because someone else –even someone you respect– is willing to risk their career and reputation doesn't mean you should.
The truth is, it's not just about you and your reputation. Whatever your personal feelings about copyright laws, when you choose to skirt them, you put other people's livelihoods at stake, too.
Jim Black pointed out that one little uncleared sample can do irreparable harm to a music supervisor's career, not to mention cost a production hundreds of thousands of dollars on the back end, just because you weren't honest about your work.
Think they'll secure a license from you again after that? Think NOT.
But if you do have an uncleared sample in the master, don't let that stop you from submitting it. Just be honest about what it is, who it is, where it is, etc., –so that if your track is up for consideration, the music supervisor at least has an opportunity to clear the sample/s on your behalf, and on behalf of the project at hand.
Sample issues aside, you say your only real issue is one of creative insecurity? That you feel like none of your compositions are ready for prime time yet? Hey, if they're mixed, they're ready. When it comes to music placement there isn't any good or bad music, just the right track, and then all the rest (which are good for something else).
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
If you weren't at the NARAS workshop on Music Supervision last night, and you're trying to figure out what the first steps you should take to getting your music licensed, I invite you to check out the following articles from the Critical Noise archives. I'm pleased to report that everything I've previously written on the topic is still very much relevant. Given my personal experience, most of it applies specifically to broadcast promotions and the ad biz, rather than to movies, episodic television or games. But whatever your personal creative goals, I think you'll find, at least some of it, to be useful advice.
Breaking Into the Ad Music Biz (Originally posted November 16, 2007)
How To License Your Songs (Originally posted November 01, 2005)
Creating Value By Licensing (Originally posted October 01, 2005)
Too Many Notes To Choose From? (Originally published in Shoot Magazine, April 13, 2001)
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Monday, March 02, 2009
Future Friendly For David Fincher
Have you ever lit up the world with music?
You Will.
In 1993, the music house I worked for was commissioned by ad agency, NW AYER, to create an original score for an AT&T campaign named 'YOU WILL'.
At the time I was a young assistant –hanging onto the ropes of commercial music production with one hand, answering phones and getting coffee for composers with the other. The premise of the 'YOU WILL' campaign was that with the future right around the corner, AT&T was in a position to deliver all sorts of high tech goodies to their customers.
Try to visualize the pre millennial era: Few in the public sphere had yet heard of the Internet, much less owned a personal computer. Cell phones were the size of car batteries. The hot technology was the CD-Rom.
So imagine how futuristic these commercials looked and sounded when they first aired and asked the then hypothetical questions:
"Have you ever paid a toll without slowing down? Bought concert tickets from a cash machine? Or tucked your baby in from a phone booth? 'YOU WILL'."
In one sense, 'YOU WILL' can be seen as (and possibly) modeled after GE’s own campaign 'WE BRING GOOD THINGS TO LIFE'. But cleverly, AT&T recast the message so as to position itself as the GE of the future.
But what a dark future the ad agency imagined for its client.
Let's look at one of the spots now, sans audio. Doing so will give you an idea of just the way our music composers first approached the project:
AT&T YOU WILL 'TOLL':30 (NO AUDIO)
Director David Fincher was commissioned to shoot the commercials. His vision of the future, as it turned out, was pretty bleak, made only somewhat more pleasant by gadgetry. At first glance, most of the interiors looked like they couldn’t even power the lights in the room much less a computer, while exteriors seemed designed to resembled a climate change model in full effect.
Which is not to say the film didn’t look good, it was great, even beautiful. But the art direction did not immediately convince one that a brighter future –either figuratively or literally– was upon us.
Essentially, Fincher delivered a study in Sci-Fi noire: equal parts 'ALPHAVILLE', 'BLADE RUNNER' and 'BRAZIL'.
Oddly enough, no one at the agency or anyone of our creative staff initially thought this Orwellian version of the 21st Century presented much of a marketing problem (for a company trying to position itself as a ubiquitous element to your future lifestyle).
In fact, the consensus between both agency and our compositional staff was that Fincher’s footage demanded a rich cinematic treatment that inspired admiration in the things AT&T could achieve for its customers.
Someone suggested that the music house use as a reference Ennio Morricone's 'WHILE THINKING ABOUT HER AGAIN’ from the soundtrack to 'CINEMA PARADISO'.
I don't recall who first made this suggestion. It may have been Fincher, Jim Haygood (the campaign's editor), someone at the ad agency or one of our own creative directors Jonathan Elias or Alexander Lasarenko. But upon its acceptance and approval, Lasarenko composed a stirring work that captured the emotional depth of Morricone’s original cue.
In fact, if you lay the 'CINEMA PARADISO' cue against any of the AT&T spots today, you can see that as a temp track, the music synchs relatively well to picture (it lacks sound design, but you get the idea). If I had to guess, I'd bet that Haygood might have used either Morricone’s music, or Lasarenko’s demo, to facilitate the process towards a final cut.
AT&T YOU WILL 'TOLL':30 (Alternate music direction):
Either way, Morricone's track certainly reinforces the cinematic quality inherent to the footage. It also adds emotive warmth, and in that regard it humanizes the picture.
By virtue of the orchestral arrangement, it also conveys a sense of understated power, which one would think agreeable sonic branding for the communications giant.
All of which is to say that this direction seemed exactly right for the project, and everyone at the ad agency seemed to agree at first.
Unfortunately, the account executives at AT&T found the Morricone direction, however romantic in its original context, weirdly dark for a project that purported to be a brand imaging campaign.
It wasn’t simply an issue of the music not working, but that the music worked too well, reinforcing Fincher’s dark vision, demanding awe and respect; rather than conveying a feeling of technological marvel and inspiring a sense of excitement and wonder.
And of course they were right.
Most of the time music is supposed to support picture, but the AT&T campaign provides us with a perfect example of a project that requires a score that contrasts picture.
The symphonic direction did well to announce a Brave New World, but our real job was to introduce a Friendly Future.
Lest there be any confusion, the future was not going to be dark, rainy or Orwellian, or feel anything like the inside of a rusting deep space oil rig.
It was going to be fun, engaging, the technology liberating and easy to use. –Less 'ALIEN 3', if not quite 'JETSONS'. No rayguns; no monsters; and the weather is going to be fine.
In other words, Disney’s TOMORROWLAND: safe, warm, inviting; and above all human and accessible.
So why didn’t Fincher shoot happy-go-lucky spots in the first place?
In all likelihood he was the hottest young director at the time, and sometimes that’s all it takes to get the job. Which is to say Fincher was hired to do Fincher (and he delivered), and any issues related to branding would be managed in post, which they were.
But another surprise awaited our composers: While our symphonic music demo was soundly rejected, the edit it was synched to was approved.
In many cases, when music providers get it wrong, agencies simply fire them and move on to someone new. But in the case of 'YOU WILL', NW Ayer gave us another chance.
However, now we were in a position of having to compose a new score that contrasted picture, and in such a way designed to represent the polar opposite of our first demo, but would nevertheless synch to the existing edit, therefore matching picture lock.
Elias wanted to provide yet another reference track for the creative team, in order to provide a concrete example of the client’s aspirations. So, this time out Lasarenko suggested an inspirational acoustic rock track, written in the odd meter of 7/4, whose cadence roughly followed a driving I V I vi V vi† chordal sequence, upon which a mystical lyric was delivered. Slammed against picture the music’s energetic beat and shimmering guitars all but lit up Fincher's otherwise dark world.
(†FYI: For readers who are not musicians, the roman numerals in the previous paragraph represent shorthand for various kinds of chords: Upper case = Major/ Lower case = Minor)
As a choice for a scratch track, it was far from typical film music. But it indicated a direction that could transform a Sci-Fi noire mini feature into a fanciful version of the future. And it achieved this result by forcibly re-framing picture with music (that specifically provided the necessary context).
Obviously this speaks to the power of music, whether in advertising, entertainment or something else altogether: That is, the power to make you believe you are seeing something you are not, because your ear is telling you that you absolutely are. Today, people re-frame their own respective worlds simply by scoring their life with personal playlists streaming off their own iPods or other portable playback devices.
In the end, both Elias’ NY and LA composers created several versions of the driving acoustic rock direction. The agency selected the strongest demo, which was further developed by adding sound design and an affable voice over courtesy MAGNUM P.I. actor Tom Selleck. When at last approved, and the final spots delivered, AT&T released the following press announcement:
"… the 'YOU WILL' campaign takes a whimsical look into the near-future when information technologies now being developed at AT&T will soon enhance the way people work, live and play."
AT&T YOU WILL 'TOLL':30 (FINAL AUDIO):
Of course, if the agency had approved the original symphonic orchestral direction, inspired by Morricone’s CINEMA PARADISO, the spots would never have been framed as anything near whimsy. Even now, the images themselves remain, dark and a bit Orwellian.
If this is the future, where the hell is the sun, you may ask?
Well, it's there, of course, beaming down upon the entire campaign, whimsy and all. It may never be a prominent element in any of the video. But nevertheless, it shines bright, illuminated by the power and magic of music.
* * *
Here's a video that includes all the spots in the campaign
* * *
Read what other people thought about 'YOU WILL':
1. From Boingboing, Cory Doctorow writes:
“I think these are the most emblematic advertisements of the era, defining the way that big companies totally missed the point of the Internet…”
2. The Work and Genius of David Fincher:
AT&T - "You Will" (1993)
* * *
FUTURE FRIENDLY FOR DAVID FINCHER is the third in an educational series examining the utilization of temp music in advertising, entertainment and media production. To read previous articles on this topic, click on either the following link or the TEMP MUSIC label/link that follows at the footer of this post:
2009 WINTER/SPRING CRITICAL NOISE ARTICLES ABOUT TEMP TRACKS:
Monday, February 09, 2009
SCRATCH TRACK FEVER
This article is the second in a series examining the utilization of temp music in advertising, entertainment and media production. Whether you call it temp music or scratch tracks (or something else), the utilitarian use of pre-recorded audio as a stand-in (or reference) for an as of yet to be determined or composed soundtrack, is standard operating procedure.
A discussion of the ethics of directly referencing other musical works, to varying degrees of detail, is reserved for another article.
But if you’re a young or amateur composer, songwriter or music designer yourself –trying to break into the system– you may be asking yourself why bother with temp music at all? Why not, for instance, simply be original?
The quick answer is that most commercial projects, whether advertising or entertainment, do not represent the singular vision of a composer, but the collective vision of a party of stakeholders in a given enterprise.
In addition, commercial works are usually derivative by nature.
Neither summer blockbusters nor advertising campaigns appear out of the ether. Few, if any, are insanely original. Most of the time, these projects are constructed according to, if not a formula, then convention. And so, it follows, the music commissioned by their makers is also constructed with industry or genre conventions in mind.
Lest you already have your mind made up, the product of formulaic thinking does not always have to be measured by a negative value. Equal temperament, the ii-V-I progression, 4/4 rhythms and absolutely every single tonal tradition –including those so-called anarchic forms, such as serial music, punk and no wave– are all produced by formula. Even the composite work of a random number/pitch generator –such scores do exist– is the result of an algorithm. And yet every single convention proves itself quite useful to adept composers, able musicians and eager audiences alike.
As it happens, there are as many reasons to consider the use of temp music, as there are creative professionals who do so. Although any single artisan may be aware of only his or her own immediate necessity for its implementation.
SURROGATE SCORES FOR HOLLYWOOD MANGA
In the broadest sense, filmmakers use temp tracks as surrogate scores, whether for preview audiences or to suggest to vendors, investors and other stakeholders what a finished film, commercial or other media project (slated for, or still in production) will eventually look, sound and feel like.
But scratch tracks aren’t only slapped against picture as surrogate scores or even as a reference tool. Long before a single frame is even shot, or a script complete, directors may select a piece of temp music as inspiration, and not just for the eventual score, but for the entire project itself.
Likewise, directors resist music suggestions embedded in scripts, but that doesn’t stop writers from making their choices known.
Still, later in the process, a temp will be chosen to accompany a pre-production model of a given project using scanned storyboards to produce what is known as an 'animatic'.
For those without any basic knowledge of the film making process:
Storyboards, while perhaps not as nuanced as a comic strip, are nonetheless a series of scene-by-scene illustrations that serve to suggest the final version of a film, TV show or commercial.
I think of storyboards as Hollywood manga, and I’m surprised there isn’t a larger interest or after-market for them amongst film fans.
Storyboards are primarily produced because they help identify a variety of needs, such as: what the film will look like; how will it be shot; what kind of sets will be required; what the costumes will look like, etc. In short everything but the music. Although once in animatic form, directors will certainly integrate temp music. Ultimately, animatics help producers arrive at a budget and schedule.
And the same thing can be said of temp music. It’s not too far fetched an idea to think of temp music being as to storyboards what storyboards are to feature films.
Temp music can also serve as a performance tool during actual filming or video capture. I can already hear the cackling, there are lots of tools in Hollywood, but this one is quite useful.
For instance, during production, directors and cinematographers may use music to enhance dramatic action via choreographed camera movement.
Less directly, performers of all kinds use music to focus, prepare, get ready and 'get pumped' before a scene or event.
It’s interesting to consider that a writer might have crafted a scene –or even an entire script– inspired by a specific piece of music, and then hand that script over to a director who might then hear something else altogether different in his or her own imagination.
And whilst shooting, each actor might have prepared him or herself for a given scene listening to their own respective individual playlists; thereby fueling their performance with yet another musical overlay.
On top of that, the cinematographer might have a symphonic score in mind, or in his or her ear buds, anyway. Still later in the process, an editor may yet select still another track to cut to.
In this hypothetical arrangement, when the music supervisor can’t secure a license, a composer is finally commissioned to score the cue, which he or she does, presenting an original work whose only common elements with the director’s (or editor’s) original scratch was mood and tempo.
Universes collide, but I guess that’s how stars are made.
TEMP TRACK AS TEMPO MAP
Pre-scores are indeed commissioned from time to time, especially in the case of animation projects.
Animators, more than composers, are loath to work with temp tracks because their work must be absolutely synchronized to audio. When animators are forced to work with a scratch track, and the final music is anything but a near infringement of the temp, there is likely possibility that either audio or picture, or audio and picture, will require any number of costly revisions –tweaks– in order to synch with each other.
For this reason animation houses, anticipating such revisions when knowledge of a temp is known before the bidding process, will justly increase their estimates for a project that requires they work with an unfinished or surrogate score.
In the case of live action, editors are generally free to use temp music as mood and tempo maps without financial repercussion. Each audio clip presents a concise distillation of human expression whose pulses form a grid or TEMPO MAP upon which subsequent cuts to moving image are made.
It has long struck me that the art of editing is every bit as musical as it is visual, and that the modern editor's art closely resembles that of an electronic recording artist or beat maker. But remove the temp and the musicality of the edit still remains.
It's as if Film and Video Editors are DJs or drummers of light, with story being the ultimate goal of this illuminated art form.
As such, music not only helps to tell the story, it also actually helps build it.
A project takes shape when each stimuli inducing element feeds into the other, resulting in what feels like a perpetual inspiration circuit, and a kind of multimedia symbiosis:
• Sound
• Image
• Conflict
• Resolution
–These are the four quadrants that support story and embed any given experience into one’s brain, whether a cinematic fabrication or present and real.
A story can certainly move forward without either emotion or music. But both emotion and music –like aphrodisiacs, steroids and Sildenafil– are performance enhancers.
The result is a tighter cut, whether the editor then chooses to
A. Present the cut without the temp track,
B. Present the cut with the temp track, or
C. Present the cut with an alternate temp track, in order to provide options for a particularly unruly piece of footage.
It makes one wonder if our lives don’t unfold in the same way, with karma ultimately being something like a Motown or Meters loop, played at a discrete level, yet still capable of propelling the entire cosmic story forward; until at last some divine editor decides to make the final cut.
Shiva, creator and destroyer of worlds (in Hindu mythology) is after all, depicted as a dancer.
MUSIC AS MOOD MAP
If a director defines the look of a project, editorial retains great leverage in defining mood.
Curiously enough, it frequently boils down to which person selects the scratch track.
Certainly, if a director has a specific work in mind for the temp, editors will first use that. But even if presented with a select by the director, an editor might still propose another idea –maybe several ideas–, and chose to cut and present to an altogether different kind of track than the director or client originally had in mind.
To be clear, an editor can't run wild with a personal scratch track choice and hope to go final. The director, client, studio or other stakeholders must approve the alternate selection. Nevertheless, the situation, as is approval of an alternate temp track, is indeed quite common.
It probably happens more frequently with advertising projects that with features. Why? –Because directors (on advertising projects) are often retained solely for the shoot itself –that is, for their eyes and their capacity to capture magic on film or video, during the shoot, but not necessarily afterwards.
Directors may therefore seem entirely absent from the edit process. Or if they are present for the edit, it is in a consultant capacity, highly valued for their opinion, but without any real authority to define a final cut.
Meanwhile, editors are hired not just for their eyes, but also for their talent as storytellers. With or without temp music, the best of the lot have a deep, almost primal feeling for pacing. And if editors are indeed drummers of light, they are also, like the BBC's Dr. Who, Time Lords.
Given this circumstance, editors retain great leverage choosing the temp music they will cut to. In fact, by virtue of their power to chose temp music, editors are also often the unsung and undeclared music supervisors of a given project.
By the time an editor is finished building a story out of raw footage, he or she may have essentially re-defined the look and sound, if not the very experience of a project –all because of the music they chose to cut to.
SCRATCH TRACK AS SURROGATE SCORE
Although there are some advantages to commissioning a pre score in lieu of temp music, being free is not one of them. On the other hand, unlicensed temp tracks allow for directional change later in the process without creative or financial penalty.
Aside from the editorial process, temp tracks can be quite useful in other ways, too. Temp tracks against rough cuts or preproduction trailers help producers garner financial interest in a project.
Potential investors then can measure the potential audience for a project based on this preview, itself a kind of beta version of a film, and then make an informed decision whether or not to contribute their own dollars into the making of it.
When production finally gets underway, rough cuts will get synched to scratch music as one means of communicating direction to the various artisans who, while they may be vendors in one sense, are also co-creators of the project.
Likewise, during previews, studios use the presentation of unfinished movies (synched to temp tracks) the same way Madison Ave uses focus groups, –in order to discover potential weaknesses of a given entertainment experience. As with focus groups, the results of previews provide producers with an opportunity to maximize entertainment value and thereby insure their investment by making suitable changes prior to release.
It’s easy to think of scratch music as serving one singular purpose. In reality, the practical uses of temping audio is varied throughout the production assembly line. Whatever your personal opinion, or preferred process for working, one would do well to understand the strength of the scratch track before abandoning the concept completely.
And if you have any desire or hope of scoring for film or advertising, then resistance, as they say amongst the Borg, is futile.
* * *
Click on the following link to read the first article in this series:
TEMP TRACKS AND THEIR PURPOSE, Monday (February 02, 2009).
Monday, February 02, 2009
TEMP TRACKS AND THEIR PURPOSE
Audiences may believe that every score for every movie, or original music bed for every TV ad, is solely the result of a unique idea generated by a gifted composer. In reality, that's only sometimes the case: Ideas are not always unique nor composers always especially gifted.
Much of the time ideas are recycled; and composers –as with other professionals in the creative food chain– endowed with varying degrees of determination and capability.
Taking into account this human variable, combined with ever present budgetary concerns and schedule issues, the result is that any efficiency that can be identified is accommodated and executed. Consequently, producers and clients will often present the composers they commission with what has long been referred to as a 'Temp Track'.
Love 'em or hate 'em, temp tracks are standard operating procedure for both filmed advertising and entertainment production.
So, what is a temp track exactly?
A temp track is any existing pre-recorded work synchronized to moving picture, intended to act as a temporary audio placeholder for an eventual score.
As with a stand-in for a movie actor, temp tracks are stand-ins for final music. Beyond that, as we'll see, their utilitarian use serves numerous purposes to the various production professionals who work on a given advertising or entertainment vehicle.
This article is the first of several that examines these multiple purposes and details their legitimate use by composers or music designers working on contemporary media projects that employ moving image.
The ubiquitous use of temp tracks is certainly old news to media and audio professionals. But the role they play may still come as a surprise to young music designers. I remember the first time I witnessed a prominent composer play through a variety of music tracks while simultaneously playing an unfinished commercial he had been commissioned to score. He was analyzing how different music treatments enhanced picture:
How did a symphonic arrangement inform the picture? What did a rock track do?
In all, I think he played twelve excerpts, each representing a different style; and in so doing, finally arrived at some idea of how he would proceed with his own immediate task of composition.
I had been composing music for a few years before that, and had studied with several well established composers –Joel Chadabe, Bill Dixon, Stephen Jaffe, Sergio Cervetti. But it had never once occurred to me to so directly and purposefully source inspiration –fundamental ideas– from another person's work for my own compositions.
I thought, you know, that you were supposed to just wait until a muse graced your soul with audio pixie dust.
So from the start, temping music seemed somewhat disingenuous to me.
Ah but then, cut to me three years later: By 1994 I had become the Senior Producer for a roster of award winning young composers. And along the way, I acquired and accepted the role of commercial aesthete. Which meant that, along with my colleagues, I became one of those people that advertising agencies call in order to solicit an expert opinion on suitable temp music for a national shampoo campaign edit; or with which to inspire the launch of a new running shoe; or –circa 1996– the magic of broadband to the United States of America.
To win a job, it didn't matter what previous successes my colleagues and I had achieved, what awards were on the shelf, or that I could direct a client to any television in order to see our current work.
Believe it or not, the commission of any given project often hinged on whether or not I could identify and recommend suitably inspiring temp music for my client's newest project. In this capacity, I was often asked not for one idea, but for many ideas –ten, twenty, fifty pieces of music– each of which had to perform and inform a rough cut in ways that enhanced story, maximized entertainment value or message delivery and conveyed a given brand mandate.
As it turns out –and as with all established production processes– the use of temp tracks is as prevalent as it is because, ultimately, temping music serves a legitimate and instructive purpose. It is, to coin a clumsy phrase, both cost efficient and creative efficient. And creative professionals working with moving picture would do well to figure out how to utilize them to their best effect.
So what lies beneath the vinyl surface?
Among their many purposes, temp tracks provide composers and other audio professionals with a clear creative brief, via referential non verbal sound. What better method, after all, than to use music to communicate musical concepts to music creators?
Completely abandoning words for music, however, isn't the best strategy if the aim is to create a wholly original work. Language can illuminate ideas and serve to focus attention on detail, as well qualify a given example with external concepts. Alternately, language can distort ideas; intentional distortions initiate nonlinear thought processes, and sometimes, the results of nonlinear thinking is exactly what the client requires.
Although, in my experience, it is a rare undertaking that the production of film, video or any other commercial media –not to mention the task of composing a commercial score for such projects– is ever executed with the aim of producing 'a wholly original work'. Which is why temp tracks are just as often not simply sources for inspiration but are also used as blue prints, recipes or formulas for construction.
Whatever your preferred metaphor, a reference track will make certain goals immediately apparent.
Artists may abhor formulaic processes, but there is no creative industry without them.
Horror flicks, as one example, are formulaic, as are pretty much all releases within a given genre. Television demands of its writers an even more rigid reliance to tried and true formulaic notions, than cinema. The entire production process is an assembly line. And it's not any different for a thirty-second TV commercial or a two hour feature.
That said, temp music should never be construed as a model upon which to plagiarize another composer's work, but rather as an mere indicator of what musical conventions or criteria a client wishes to adhere to. But of course, many composers find it can be a fine line to walk.
How then does the process impact composers and music designers?
In the case of a TV commercial, a temp track will arrive as a thirty-second excerpt from a existing longer musical work, which the editor has typically cut picture to, and which is then 'layered' with the picture.
Sometimes editorial will begin with one temp track and switch to another that contextualizes image differently. Such substitution is only viable (after an edit gets 'locked') if the surrogate track/s share the same tempo, or are beat matched to synch with picture.
Likewise, different audio artisans competing for final music on a given spot may all be assigned a different temp track as a platform for inspiration. Sometimes clients can't make up their mind on what the best approach is until they see or hear it executed.
But whatever music the composer receives, it's safe to assume that any particular temp track was chosen because someone –the director, editor or client– thinks it 'works' with the picture, enhancing it in some agreeable and applicable manner that should be obvious to you, or you are in the wrong business.
In the case of TV commercials, instrumental sections of popular tunes are often culled as temp tracks. Advertisers typically want music that appeals to a specific demographic, say, young women between 18 and 25. Therefore they will choose a song popular among this group, and use it to suggest creative direction to a composer.
There are cases when music is not demographic specific, as when the assignment requires a classic film score treatment. Also, a certain rock sound, which once skewed young, and now defines boomers, by some trick of sonic ubiquity has become so elastic that it can sometimes serve to define everybody else, too. Neutral tracks of any genre can also transcend age specified demographics, although every time I hear a spot with incidental music, I think why did they even bother. You're never going to appeal to everybody, so why not use music to reach out to the specific people whom you would like serve?
'Why not identify your fans? And why not identify with your fans?' –is another way of putting it.
In the case of a feature length film, the temp track is not a single work, but rather a series of works, and these works are quite often borrowed from other film scores.
Practically speaking, the temp track may refer to one piece of music accompanying a single cue, or to all the temporary works scattered throughout a single film.
Generally, the producer, director or editor will define the scene by drawing a comparison to other scenes from other movies in the same genre and will borrow an existing score as the temporary material.
For example, for a romantic exchange between the leading man and woman –a common enough cue– the film maker/s may lift the music for a previously documented passionate kiss and play it with their own cue depicting a similarly passionate kiss.
Ideally, temp track and moving picture synch together perfectly from an editorial perspective, capably driving story forward while simultaneously enhancing dramatic content, and yet still reveal itself as an imperfect surrogate to a capable composer.
If the music is too perfect, the filmmaker may ask the composer to compose a nearly identical work, often forcing the composer to strain the limits of copyright infringement. An imperfect work, however, grants a composer ample leeway to inform the concept with a dose of originality and thereby compose a customized piece inspired by the temp track, but original unto itself. Such is the ideal.
Why use temp tracks at all?
Clients often demand them, if not to indicate direction to composers, then at the very least to simulate completeness during pre or post production (for themselves and other artisans working on the project).
Pre production temp tracks suggest a final version of the film, and therefore help producers arrive solutions to creative, talent and budget decisions.
In post production, temp tracks allow filmmakers to proceed with composite and post until such time as they receive an original score, or a music supervisor obtains a license for the producer to use the temp track itself, or some other piece.
Movie producers may also preview a film in front of test audiences, before establishing a final cut, using temp tracks. Preview audiences are Hollywood's answer to focus groups. Vetting movies, commercials, products, games or music before test groups doesn't sound very artistic, and it's not. But it is good business for commercial entertainment vehicles.
But if clients don't arrive with temp track in hand, music producers and other audio professionals may still use them as a means to demonstrate they understand a given project, and therefore worthy of a given commission.
It doesn't always go well. I recall watching one rough cut for a package shipper. It depicted a fun and crazy vignette, and I thought 'party music'. But the advertising agency saw itself as representing an American institution and therefore wanted music befitting such a client. Needless to say, I did not get that job.
Regardless of intention, a good temp track selection always sounds like it fits. Some fit so well, however, that clients fall in love with them, an obsessive state of mind I'll discuss in a future article. In those cases, for better or worse, the temp goes final. And as terrible as that is for a composer fired from a project because the client fell for the temp, sometimes the temp IS the best arrangement for a given project.
In the meantime, I'm waiting for a pharmacological solution that composers can give clients, which successfully cures or manages 'Demo Love'. I think it would have to be classified as an anti-anxiety drug, and it would be especially designed for Obsessive-compulsive creative leads possessing audio sensory issues. Perhaps these pills could be discreetly distributed in the dimly lit screening rooms of post production facilities, in between conference calls.
And of course, they should be called Fermata™.
Seriously, and certainly, searching through all the music ever recorded in order to identify even one suitable temp track can be a stressful and lengthy task. Compound that stress then, when a specific time frame, a limited budget and job insecurity loom over the process.
However, once selected –whether by the producer, director editor, composer or client– and subsequently synched to a rough cut, a given temp track can ably provide implicit direction to a given composer without anyone ever having to say a single word. And while temp tracks also have their weaknesses, therein lies the immediate strength and efficiency of the humble temp track.
Much of the time ideas are recycled; and composers –as with other professionals in the creative food chain– endowed with varying degrees of determination and capability.
Taking into account this human variable, combined with ever present budgetary concerns and schedule issues, the result is that any efficiency that can be identified is accommodated and executed. Consequently, producers and clients will often present the composers they commission with what has long been referred to as a 'Temp Track'.
Love 'em or hate 'em, temp tracks are standard operating procedure for both filmed advertising and entertainment production.
So, what is a temp track exactly?
A temp track is any existing pre-recorded work synchronized to moving picture, intended to act as a temporary audio placeholder for an eventual score.
As with a stand-in for a movie actor, temp tracks are stand-ins for final music. Beyond that, as we'll see, their utilitarian use serves numerous purposes to the various production professionals who work on a given advertising or entertainment vehicle.
This article is the first of several that examines these multiple purposes and details their legitimate use by composers or music designers working on contemporary media projects that employ moving image.
The ubiquitous use of temp tracks is certainly old news to media and audio professionals. But the role they play may still come as a surprise to young music designers. I remember the first time I witnessed a prominent composer play through a variety of music tracks while simultaneously playing an unfinished commercial he had been commissioned to score. He was analyzing how different music treatments enhanced picture:
How did a symphonic arrangement inform the picture? What did a rock track do?
In all, I think he played twelve excerpts, each representing a different style; and in so doing, finally arrived at some idea of how he would proceed with his own immediate task of composition.
I had been composing music for a few years before that, and had studied with several well established composers –Joel Chadabe, Bill Dixon, Stephen Jaffe, Sergio Cervetti. But it had never once occurred to me to so directly and purposefully source inspiration –fundamental ideas– from another person's work for my own compositions.
I thought, you know, that you were supposed to just wait until a muse graced your soul with audio pixie dust.
So from the start, temping music seemed somewhat disingenuous to me.
Ah but then, cut to me three years later: By 1994 I had become the Senior Producer for a roster of award winning young composers. And along the way, I acquired and accepted the role of commercial aesthete. Which meant that, along with my colleagues, I became one of those people that advertising agencies call in order to solicit an expert opinion on suitable temp music for a national shampoo campaign edit; or with which to inspire the launch of a new running shoe; or –circa 1996– the magic of broadband to the United States of America.
To win a job, it didn't matter what previous successes my colleagues and I had achieved, what awards were on the shelf, or that I could direct a client to any television in order to see our current work.
Believe it or not, the commission of any given project often hinged on whether or not I could identify and recommend suitably inspiring temp music for my client's newest project. In this capacity, I was often asked not for one idea, but for many ideas –ten, twenty, fifty pieces of music– each of which had to perform and inform a rough cut in ways that enhanced story, maximized entertainment value or message delivery and conveyed a given brand mandate.
As it turns out –and as with all established production processes– the use of temp tracks is as prevalent as it is because, ultimately, temping music serves a legitimate and instructive purpose. It is, to coin a clumsy phrase, both cost efficient and creative efficient. And creative professionals working with moving picture would do well to figure out how to utilize them to their best effect.
So what lies beneath the vinyl surface?
Among their many purposes, temp tracks provide composers and other audio professionals with a clear creative brief, via referential non verbal sound. What better method, after all, than to use music to communicate musical concepts to music creators?
Completely abandoning words for music, however, isn't the best strategy if the aim is to create a wholly original work. Language can illuminate ideas and serve to focus attention on detail, as well qualify a given example with external concepts. Alternately, language can distort ideas; intentional distortions initiate nonlinear thought processes, and sometimes, the results of nonlinear thinking is exactly what the client requires.
Although, in my experience, it is a rare undertaking that the production of film, video or any other commercial media –not to mention the task of composing a commercial score for such projects– is ever executed with the aim of producing 'a wholly original work'. Which is why temp tracks are just as often not simply sources for inspiration but are also used as blue prints, recipes or formulas for construction.
Whatever your preferred metaphor, a reference track will make certain goals immediately apparent.
Artists may abhor formulaic processes, but there is no creative industry without them.
Horror flicks, as one example, are formulaic, as are pretty much all releases within a given genre. Television demands of its writers an even more rigid reliance to tried and true formulaic notions, than cinema. The entire production process is an assembly line. And it's not any different for a thirty-second TV commercial or a two hour feature.
That said, temp music should never be construed as a model upon which to plagiarize another composer's work, but rather as an mere indicator of what musical conventions or criteria a client wishes to adhere to. But of course, many composers find it can be a fine line to walk.
How then does the process impact composers and music designers?
In the case of a TV commercial, a temp track will arrive as a thirty-second excerpt from a existing longer musical work, which the editor has typically cut picture to, and which is then 'layered' with the picture.
Sometimes editorial will begin with one temp track and switch to another that contextualizes image differently. Such substitution is only viable (after an edit gets 'locked') if the surrogate track/s share the same tempo, or are beat matched to synch with picture.
Likewise, different audio artisans competing for final music on a given spot may all be assigned a different temp track as a platform for inspiration. Sometimes clients can't make up their mind on what the best approach is until they see or hear it executed.
But whatever music the composer receives, it's safe to assume that any particular temp track was chosen because someone –the director, editor or client– thinks it 'works' with the picture, enhancing it in some agreeable and applicable manner that should be obvious to you, or you are in the wrong business.
In the case of TV commercials, instrumental sections of popular tunes are often culled as temp tracks. Advertisers typically want music that appeals to a specific demographic, say, young women between 18 and 25. Therefore they will choose a song popular among this group, and use it to suggest creative direction to a composer.
There are cases when music is not demographic specific, as when the assignment requires a classic film score treatment. Also, a certain rock sound, which once skewed young, and now defines boomers, by some trick of sonic ubiquity has become so elastic that it can sometimes serve to define everybody else, too. Neutral tracks of any genre can also transcend age specified demographics, although every time I hear a spot with incidental music, I think why did they even bother. You're never going to appeal to everybody, so why not use music to reach out to the specific people whom you would like serve?
'Why not identify your fans? And why not identify with your fans?' –is another way of putting it.
In the case of a feature length film, the temp track is not a single work, but rather a series of works, and these works are quite often borrowed from other film scores.
Practically speaking, the temp track may refer to one piece of music accompanying a single cue, or to all the temporary works scattered throughout a single film.
Generally, the producer, director or editor will define the scene by drawing a comparison to other scenes from other movies in the same genre and will borrow an existing score as the temporary material.
For example, for a romantic exchange between the leading man and woman –a common enough cue– the film maker/s may lift the music for a previously documented passionate kiss and play it with their own cue depicting a similarly passionate kiss.
Ideally, temp track and moving picture synch together perfectly from an editorial perspective, capably driving story forward while simultaneously enhancing dramatic content, and yet still reveal itself as an imperfect surrogate to a capable composer.
If the music is too perfect, the filmmaker may ask the composer to compose a nearly identical work, often forcing the composer to strain the limits of copyright infringement. An imperfect work, however, grants a composer ample leeway to inform the concept with a dose of originality and thereby compose a customized piece inspired by the temp track, but original unto itself. Such is the ideal.
Why use temp tracks at all?
Clients often demand them, if not to indicate direction to composers, then at the very least to simulate completeness during pre or post production (for themselves and other artisans working on the project).
Pre production temp tracks suggest a final version of the film, and therefore help producers arrive solutions to creative, talent and budget decisions.
In post production, temp tracks allow filmmakers to proceed with composite and post until such time as they receive an original score, or a music supervisor obtains a license for the producer to use the temp track itself, or some other piece.
Movie producers may also preview a film in front of test audiences, before establishing a final cut, using temp tracks. Preview audiences are Hollywood's answer to focus groups. Vetting movies, commercials, products, games or music before test groups doesn't sound very artistic, and it's not. But it is good business for commercial entertainment vehicles.
But if clients don't arrive with temp track in hand, music producers and other audio professionals may still use them as a means to demonstrate they understand a given project, and therefore worthy of a given commission.
It doesn't always go well. I recall watching one rough cut for a package shipper. It depicted a fun and crazy vignette, and I thought 'party music'. But the advertising agency saw itself as representing an American institution and therefore wanted music befitting such a client. Needless to say, I did not get that job.
Regardless of intention, a good temp track selection always sounds like it fits. Some fit so well, however, that clients fall in love with them, an obsessive state of mind I'll discuss in a future article. In those cases, for better or worse, the temp goes final. And as terrible as that is for a composer fired from a project because the client fell for the temp, sometimes the temp IS the best arrangement for a given project.
In the meantime, I'm waiting for a pharmacological solution that composers can give clients, which successfully cures or manages 'Demo Love'. I think it would have to be classified as an anti-anxiety drug, and it would be especially designed for Obsessive-compulsive creative leads possessing audio sensory issues. Perhaps these pills could be discreetly distributed in the dimly lit screening rooms of post production facilities, in between conference calls.
And of course, they should be called Fermata™.
Seriously, and certainly, searching through all the music ever recorded in order to identify even one suitable temp track can be a stressful and lengthy task. Compound that stress then, when a specific time frame, a limited budget and job insecurity loom over the process.
However, once selected –whether by the producer, director editor, composer or client– and subsequently synched to a rough cut, a given temp track can ably provide implicit direction to a given composer without anyone ever having to say a single word. And while temp tracks also have their weaknesses, therein lies the immediate strength and efficiency of the humble temp track.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Music Producers Recommend Fermata™
THE SMALL PRINT:
Fermata™ is used to treat advertising and entertainment professionals who suffer from a specific Obsessive-Compulsive disorder, marked by certain audio sensory issues, which narrow creative vision and often result in Demo or Temp 'Love'.
4 out of 5 Creative Directors who take Fermata™ subsequently report feeling that other people's opinions may have some inherent validity.
FERMATA™
Like Music For Your Soul
Generic Name: Chill Pill
Brand Names: Fermata™
Important information about Fermata™:
You may feel like you are losing control or acquiescing to mediocrity when you first start taking Fermata™, especially if you are naturally prone to feelings of creative and artistic infallibility.
A common side effect of taking Fermata™ is a greater acceptance of competing ideas from colleagues and associates. Increased tolerance to other points of view, regardless of true or relative merit, or relevancy, is a common side effect of taking more than your doctor's prescribed dose of Fermata™.
In general, people who take Fermata™ report fewer instances of outbursts that contain the phrase, 'I just want it to be great', 'It was my idea to begin with' or 'You don't get it, do you?'.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
A&R Vs. A&B – Artist & Branding
Back in 1994, only a couple of years after I started producing music for TV, radio and early interactive media, I noticed the increasing number of people calling the studio inquiring about the music they had heard on a commercial. They wanted to know where they could buy the album that included the full length version of the track that they heard on the commercial.
Most of the time I had to tell them that no such an album existed.
Well, it didn't take long for me to realize an opportunity was being wasted here. So, at that point I started pitching my clients –account execs at ad agencies– with the idea to produce an album of music that included an extended version of the ad music, and several other similarly composed selections.
The result would be a promotional gift they could give to their customers upon a purchase. I envisioned hiring young rising stars and then making, say, a BMW produced-and-branded CD (or later, I conceived it as a downloadable playlist, which I alternately called Branded or Brand Mixes) that, say, new car owners could play in their 'Ultimate Driving Machine'.
In other words, I wanted advertising agencies to become music companies.
It seemed like a simple thing to do. After all, agencies were already producing 'singles', per say in the way of jingles and underscores; and creating multi million dollar videos for them (the commercials); and buying enough media time to put them into heavy rotation (promoting TV shows and products), thereby insuring public awareness, buzz and even to some extent, mass popularity. So, what's another half mil to actually create a piece of collateral you can own (for a little while, anyway) and give to customers of the 'core merchandise'?
And now, wake up to the year 2009, and this model appears, if not quite in full swing, a viable alternate way to for some musicians win fans and to either bypass or attract the attention of record labels.
That said, I don't think it's working out quite so well for the advertisers, and that's because agencies by and large have missed one key ingredient in the production of
However, if advertising agencies are increasingly assuming the role one held by record labels why isn't the model yet working in terms of industry?
The problem has to do with how advertisers view people: Whereas Artists see Fans who relate to performers, Advertisers see Consumers who simply use products.
But this paradigm might change if the makers of products and services begin place less emphasis on creating profit and instead consider how they might create and benefit from the creation of artistic or socially conscious cultural capital.
Whether such promotions will cost more or less than traditional marketing means remains to be seen, but ROE (the Return Of Emotion) potentially earns more loyalty and therefore generates more earnings long term (than meeting immediate profit goals).
ROE is always worth more than ROI alone, because ROE influences repeated contact with the brand, and therefore more opportunities for Consumer and Company to interact. ROE is what transforms a Seller/Buyer arrangement into a RELATIONSHIP.
In other words, ROE is what turns customers into return customers, thereby transforming them from a person who makes a casual purchase into a FAN.
Customers come and customers go, but fans will nurture and maintain a long term commitment (with Bands AND Brands) because Bands AND Brands give them REAL reasons to love them. In this respect, ROE encourages the development of exactly the kind of characteristics similarly found in relationships between two people, or a person and a pet, or any two living beings that share a mutual bond.
In no particular order, such characteristics include (and yes, some words overlap the definitions of others):
• Availability
• Dependability
• Reliability
• Respect
• Communication
• Maintainability
• Support
• Shared Responsibility
• Trust
• Integrity
• Loyalty
And last but not least:
• Free Gifts
It would be funny, wouldn't it, if it weren't also true.
At any rate, I once even fancied myself adopting a new role with the job title 'Artist & Branding'.
Didn't happen, although not doubt, with the tremendous increase in licensing music by advertising agencies in recent years, many music supervisors have already essentially taken on this role.
Regardless, since then, other's have created similarly conceived positions (not to mention produced similarly conceived promotions) with notable success. As a result, I do believe that one day in the near future –if only because I see it already happening right now– the traditional A&R role will evolve into a new A&B model. –Regardless of whether or not industry staffers ever actually relinquish the title that so many still dream of assuming, 'Artists & Repertoire'.
Most of the time I had to tell them that no such an album existed.
Well, it didn't take long for me to realize an opportunity was being wasted here. So, at that point I started pitching my clients –account execs at ad agencies– with the idea to produce an album of music that included an extended version of the ad music, and several other similarly composed selections.
The result would be a promotional gift they could give to their customers upon a purchase. I envisioned hiring young rising stars and then making, say, a BMW produced-and-branded CD (or later, I conceived it as a downloadable playlist, which I alternately called Branded or Brand Mixes) that, say, new car owners could play in their 'Ultimate Driving Machine'.
In other words, I wanted advertising agencies to become music companies.
It seemed like a simple thing to do. After all, agencies were already producing 'singles', per say in the way of jingles and underscores; and creating multi million dollar videos for them (the commercials); and buying enough media time to put them into heavy rotation (promoting TV shows and products), thereby insuring public awareness, buzz and even to some extent, mass popularity. So, what's another half mil to actually create a piece of collateral you can own (for a little while, anyway) and give to customers of the 'core merchandise'?
And now, wake up to the year 2009, and this model appears, if not quite in full swing, a viable alternate way to for some musicians win fans and to either bypass or attract the attention of record labels.
That said, I don't think it's working out quite so well for the advertisers, and that's because agencies by and large have missed one key ingredient in the production of
However, if advertising agencies are increasingly assuming the role one held by record labels why isn't the model yet working in terms of industry?
The problem has to do with how advertisers view people: Whereas Artists see Fans who relate to performers, Advertisers see Consumers who simply use products.
But this paradigm might change if the makers of products and services begin place less emphasis on creating profit and instead consider how they might create and benefit from the creation of artistic or socially conscious cultural capital.
Whether such promotions will cost more or less than traditional marketing means remains to be seen, but ROE (the Return Of Emotion) potentially earns more loyalty and therefore generates more earnings long term (than meeting immediate profit goals).
ROE is always worth more than ROI alone, because ROE influences repeated contact with the brand, and therefore more opportunities for Consumer and Company to interact. ROE is what transforms a Seller/Buyer arrangement into a RELATIONSHIP.
In other words, ROE is what turns customers into return customers, thereby transforming them from a person who makes a casual purchase into a FAN.
Customers come and customers go, but fans will nurture and maintain a long term commitment (with Bands AND Brands) because Bands AND Brands give them REAL reasons to love them. In this respect, ROE encourages the development of exactly the kind of characteristics similarly found in relationships between two people, or a person and a pet, or any two living beings that share a mutual bond.
In no particular order, such characteristics include (and yes, some words overlap the definitions of others):
• Availability
• Dependability
• Reliability
• Respect
• Communication
• Maintainability
• Support
• Shared Responsibility
• Trust
• Integrity
• Loyalty
And last but not least:
• Free Gifts
It would be funny, wouldn't it, if it weren't also true.
At any rate, I once even fancied myself adopting a new role with the job title 'Artist & Branding'.
Didn't happen, although not doubt, with the tremendous increase in licensing music by advertising agencies in recent years, many music supervisors have already essentially taken on this role.
Regardless, since then, other's have created similarly conceived positions (not to mention produced similarly conceived promotions) with notable success. As a result, I do believe that one day in the near future –if only because I see it already happening right now– the traditional A&R role will evolve into a new A&B model. –Regardless of whether or not industry staffers ever actually relinquish the title that so many still dream of assuming, 'Artists & Repertoire'.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
SOUL'D OUT!
Most of the broadcast projects I've been involved in over the last two decades can in a sense be considered straight-ahead enhancements to moving picture, game play or venue experience. Nevertheless, it was in the mid nineties that I began formulating my own uniquely formulated Brand Theology, and not long after that, that I began chasing Broadband video as it emerged from Madison Alley (Madison Ave + Silicon V/Alley, i.e. the ad tech community) byte by precious byte, well before anyone thought audio would ever get small enough to enhance the web experience in any meaningful way.
More recently –in this millennium– I've positioned myself as a creative consultant. As such, I'm asked to consult individual artist/ entertainers who believe my once so-close-to-the-sun and you'll-get-burned-proximity to brand imaging (via music production for advertising, and as a founder of a pioneering interactive audio shop) might also make me capable at providing them with some insight how to reverse engineer the publicity process in order to fuel their own creative careers.
Along the way, I've had occasion to coin the rare phrase, and redefine others which had already found their way into limited circulation, if only as a means to explain myself with necessary clarity. I stumbled through a lot of now dead ideas, but a few things I got right. Today, even if the exact phrases that I chose aren't in wide use –Rock Brands, Medici Model, Camelback Collateral and Strategic Audio Partnerships– the ideas they represent are indeed present and certainly living large.
Most people I speak to seem to be gravitating towards using a variation of the phrase 'New Music Model', 'New Music Paradigm' or 'Music 2.0'. I think all three terms are rather neutral, –a sort of non descriptive nomenclature that doesn't quite reveal anything. Fine for a cocktail party, but otherwise devoid of content. But, sure, you'll catch me using one or the other on occasion as a kind of short hand when I know the person/s I'm addressing are already well acquainted with what those terms might imply.
Music 2.0 suggests a new version to replace the current version. But the terms I chose collectively describe aspects of what I originally conceived as a parallel 'music industry' –one where independent musicians thrived using a modified 'Medici model' –whether that meant accepting a role where public endorsements were required, or in my own case, accepting work-for-hire commissions in order to pay for 'my art'.
The Medici model isn't my own invention, and its meaning is widely understood by those who know the history of the Medici family and their patronage of the arts, between the 13th and 17th centuries. Ever since, DIY musicians and artists since then have been trying to find ways to reignite its potential so that they might be able to survive our capitalist construct, integrity intact, but sans Industry.
Enter the Internet, and the Medici model is actually viable again, albeit on a more significant scale.
SOLD OUT OR SOUL'D OUT?
In 2001, a few weeks after the World Trade Center fell, I produced a group of New York Metro area session musicians and singers, under the banner Gotham Artists, in the production of a tribute song. Despite it's limited '01/'02 release on the now defunct MP3.com site ((it now lives a quiet life on the Garageband site), I continue to receive appreciative email complimenting our efforts and the resulting music.
I'm telling you this because the tools you have now, from home studio equipment to social networking sites to YouTube, all mean that you and your musical vision stand at least an equal chance –and in reality a very great possibility– of touching another soul on the other side of the planet.
And that's all it takes.
In many ways we live in a Post Sell Out World, but it still hasn't lost its heart. Get your music out there and don't worry about being too harshly judged. Ultimately, art is an experience of self discovery. If you become an international global pop star in the process, more power to you.
BRANDING WITH AUDIO AND BEYOND
So with that in mind, I'm kicking 2008 out and 2009 in with a recap of what I think were some of the most prescient articles this author has published in the first few years of the new millennium.
The third article listed below, Branding With Audio, was published by an industry trade back in March of 2001, and represents one of the first widely read articles on Sonic Branding.
"Do you know what your company is saying right now?"
You can read some version of this phrase on just about every music house, audio branding company or composer website today, but prior to the publication of this article you would be hard put to find even industry insiders asking it. Not like I'm a futurist –a term I utterly loathe– but given my background and interests, I simply arrived at the question before most.
I include the article on this list because while it was written for an audience of account executives and marketers in mind, it concludes with advice I think is (still) applicable whatever side of a co-branding agreement you may be on, artist or executive:
"Branding beyond advertising means creating an experience that is free of an overt pitch yet is compelling enough that consumers will nevertheless identify it with your brand. If you've produced a CD, for instance, folks will listen to it while they eat, work out, make love, and your company will be the underscore to their lives. Oats may be oats, but if I'm making babies to your music, then chances are my babies will be eating your oats".
Agree or disagree, either way, I hope it provides continued food for thought (no pun intended). It's 2009 – you don't need a multi national to fund your project in order to draw fans from around the world.
here's to making a big noise in the new year,
Terry O'Gara
* * *
From the Critical Noise Archives
From YR 2000
ROCK BRANDS: Tomorrow's Rock Star Marketing Partners
From YR 2000
Convergence And The Composer
Originally published in Shoot Magazine, August, 2000
From YR 2001
Branding With Audio
Originally published in Clickz, March, 2001
From YR 2003
EXPERIENCE: Traditional Packaging Not Required
From YR 2003
This is Where the Story Ends
From YR 2006
Music as Collateral: Using Audio to Add Value
From YR 2007
Music as Collateral: Compatible Archetypes
More recently –in this millennium– I've positioned myself as a creative consultant. As such, I'm asked to consult individual artist/ entertainers who believe my once so-close-to-the-sun and you'll-get-burned-proximity to brand imaging (via music production for advertising, and as a founder of a pioneering interactive audio shop) might also make me capable at providing them with some insight how to reverse engineer the publicity process in order to fuel their own creative careers.
Along the way, I've had occasion to coin the rare phrase, and redefine others which had already found their way into limited circulation, if only as a means to explain myself with necessary clarity. I stumbled through a lot of now dead ideas, but a few things I got right. Today, even if the exact phrases that I chose aren't in wide use –Rock Brands, Medici Model, Camelback Collateral and Strategic Audio Partnerships– the ideas they represent are indeed present and certainly living large.
Most people I speak to seem to be gravitating towards using a variation of the phrase 'New Music Model', 'New Music Paradigm' or 'Music 2.0'. I think all three terms are rather neutral, –a sort of non descriptive nomenclature that doesn't quite reveal anything. Fine for a cocktail party, but otherwise devoid of content. But, sure, you'll catch me using one or the other on occasion as a kind of short hand when I know the person/s I'm addressing are already well acquainted with what those terms might imply.
Music 2.0 suggests a new version to replace the current version. But the terms I chose collectively describe aspects of what I originally conceived as a parallel 'music industry' –one where independent musicians thrived using a modified 'Medici model' –whether that meant accepting a role where public endorsements were required, or in my own case, accepting work-for-hire commissions in order to pay for 'my art'.
The Medici model isn't my own invention, and its meaning is widely understood by those who know the history of the Medici family and their patronage of the arts, between the 13th and 17th centuries. Ever since, DIY musicians and artists since then have been trying to find ways to reignite its potential so that they might be able to survive our capitalist construct, integrity intact, but sans Industry.
Enter the Internet, and the Medici model is actually viable again, albeit on a more significant scale.
SOLD OUT OR SOUL'D OUT?
In 2001, a few weeks after the World Trade Center fell, I produced a group of New York Metro area session musicians and singers, under the banner Gotham Artists, in the production of a tribute song. Despite it's limited '01/'02 release on the now defunct MP3.com site ((it now lives a quiet life on the Garageband site), I continue to receive appreciative email complimenting our efforts and the resulting music.
I'm telling you this because the tools you have now, from home studio equipment to social networking sites to YouTube, all mean that you and your musical vision stand at least an equal chance –and in reality a very great possibility– of touching another soul on the other side of the planet.
And that's all it takes.
In many ways we live in a Post Sell Out World, but it still hasn't lost its heart. Get your music out there and don't worry about being too harshly judged. Ultimately, art is an experience of self discovery. If you become an international global pop star in the process, more power to you.
BRANDING WITH AUDIO AND BEYOND
So with that in mind, I'm kicking 2008 out and 2009 in with a recap of what I think were some of the most prescient articles this author has published in the first few years of the new millennium.
The third article listed below, Branding With Audio, was published by an industry trade back in March of 2001, and represents one of the first widely read articles on Sonic Branding.
"Do you know what your company is saying right now?"
You can read some version of this phrase on just about every music house, audio branding company or composer website today, but prior to the publication of this article you would be hard put to find even industry insiders asking it. Not like I'm a futurist –a term I utterly loathe– but given my background and interests, I simply arrived at the question before most.
I include the article on this list because while it was written for an audience of account executives and marketers in mind, it concludes with advice I think is (still) applicable whatever side of a co-branding agreement you may be on, artist or executive:
"Branding beyond advertising means creating an experience that is free of an overt pitch yet is compelling enough that consumers will nevertheless identify it with your brand. If you've produced a CD, for instance, folks will listen to it while they eat, work out, make love, and your company will be the underscore to their lives. Oats may be oats, but if I'm making babies to your music, then chances are my babies will be eating your oats".
Agree or disagree, either way, I hope it provides continued food for thought (no pun intended). It's 2009 – you don't need a multi national to fund your project in order to draw fans from around the world.
here's to making a big noise in the new year,
Terry O'Gara
* * *
From the Critical Noise Archives
From YR 2000
ROCK BRANDS: Tomorrow's Rock Star Marketing Partners
From YR 2000
Convergence And The Composer
Originally published in Shoot Magazine, August, 2000
From YR 2001
Branding With Audio
Originally published in Clickz, March, 2001
From YR 2003
EXPERIENCE: Traditional Packaging Not Required
From YR 2003
This is Where the Story Ends
From YR 2006
Music as Collateral: Using Audio to Add Value
From YR 2007
Music as Collateral: Compatible Archetypes
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Co-Branding as an Alternative to 360 Deals
While presented as 'new music paradigm', the term 360 describes a wishful number of revenue streams flowing back to a traditional label, based on a traditional loan to an artist signing an otherwise traditional agreement.
Which is not to say you should never consider participating in such an agreement.
If your current income is zero, then a 360 deal makes great sense.
However, for an artist who has already established a revenue stream, a 360 deal only becomes a reasonable choice when all parties to the contract, having full understanding of their responsibilities to the other parties, and with full transparency can be held accountable for the execution (or abdication) of said responsibilities, so in effect, contract each other.
The label only wants to pay you on the net of record sales? Therefore likewise, carve out an agreement whereby they are only paid on the net of touring and merch; and like any good manager, hold them accountable for the fulfillment of specific, measurable responsibilities (that entitle them to the agreed commission). To me, that sounds fair and equitable.
The ideal 360 deal –from the artist's perspective– should therefore look a lot like a CO-BRANDING agreement, albeit where one partner (the source of funding) remains invisible, logo real estate notwithstanding.
With the exception of limited work-for-hire agreements (one-off commissions), no one in the new millennium should enter any kind relationship whose execution would compromise an artist's integrity.
Nobody should, but people will. As much as record companies are accused of being greedy, musicians are often equally guilty of signing draconian agreements in order to satisfy a lust for fame and celebrity. But this is not the always the case, of course, and in fact, as previously indicated, 360 deals make sense for some acts, and one may even make sense for you.
However, in our Post Sell Out World, you're a free agent. So, if you're going to sign a 360 deal, you don't necessarily have to do it with a traditional music label. Instead, you can do it with a collaborator of your choosing, for terms agreeable to both of you.
You might sign with the entity who gives you the least control but the most money; or you might choose to collaborate with a company that offers you less money but more creative control. Ideally, you will enter into either a limited term equity partnership or accept a 'Project Underwriter Sponsorship'.
FYI: Per the 'PBS Red Book', "PBS defines an "underwriter" as a third party that has voluntarily contributed cash to finance, in whole or in part, the production or acquisition of a PBS program. Money from such sources used toward research and development, or for packaging or repackaging a program, ordinarily counts as underwriting as well".
For our purposes, a Project Underwriter Sponsorship is defined as an agreement between a two or more parties whereby one or more has voluntarily contributed cash to finance, in whole or in part, the production of a an artistic project, in this case a musical recording by a specific artist/s and the subsequent promotion of the project, in return for credit for having done so.
Neither co-branding partners nor underwriters may necessarily have a history recording and distributing music. If we speak strictly of a 'new music paradigm', they usually do not.
In fact, for the purposes of raising funds in order to record, tour and pay the rent, EVERY company is a potential record company –from the local shops on Main Street to whomever happens to top the Fortune 400 list in a given year, and whether they sell futuristic widgets or old fashioned potpourri.
Of course, not every company can provide distribution, but depending on your specific needs you may or may not need a major label network in order to fulfill your own professional and artistic goals.
The important thing is that such deals are structured as mutually beneficial CO-BRANDING contracts, or as corporate sponsorship of an artistic enterprise, but never as label/bank providing a lopsided loan to the customer/artist. Because if all you need is a loan in order for your dreams to come true, there are cheaper ways to secure that loan, even in today's economy.
More to the point, artists can stop doing business as applicants for loans, if they find a way to position themselves as suitable investments in another company's or collaborator's business strategy.
Which is not to say you should never consider participating in such an agreement.
If your current income is zero, then a 360 deal makes great sense.
However, for an artist who has already established a revenue stream, a 360 deal only becomes a reasonable choice when all parties to the contract, having full understanding of their responsibilities to the other parties, and with full transparency can be held accountable for the execution (or abdication) of said responsibilities, so in effect, contract each other.
The label only wants to pay you on the net of record sales? Therefore likewise, carve out an agreement whereby they are only paid on the net of touring and merch; and like any good manager, hold them accountable for the fulfillment of specific, measurable responsibilities (that entitle them to the agreed commission). To me, that sounds fair and equitable.
The ideal 360 deal –from the artist's perspective– should therefore look a lot like a CO-BRANDING agreement, albeit where one partner (the source of funding) remains invisible, logo real estate notwithstanding.
With the exception of limited work-for-hire agreements (one-off commissions), no one in the new millennium should enter any kind relationship whose execution would compromise an artist's integrity.
Nobody should, but people will. As much as record companies are accused of being greedy, musicians are often equally guilty of signing draconian agreements in order to satisfy a lust for fame and celebrity. But this is not the always the case, of course, and in fact, as previously indicated, 360 deals make sense for some acts, and one may even make sense for you.
However, in our Post Sell Out World, you're a free agent. So, if you're going to sign a 360 deal, you don't necessarily have to do it with a traditional music label. Instead, you can do it with a collaborator of your choosing, for terms agreeable to both of you.
You might sign with the entity who gives you the least control but the most money; or you might choose to collaborate with a company that offers you less money but more creative control. Ideally, you will enter into either a limited term equity partnership or accept a 'Project Underwriter Sponsorship'.
FYI: Per the 'PBS Red Book', "PBS defines an "underwriter" as a third party that has voluntarily contributed cash to finance, in whole or in part, the production or acquisition of a PBS program. Money from such sources used toward research and development, or for packaging or repackaging a program, ordinarily counts as underwriting as well".
For our purposes, a Project Underwriter Sponsorship is defined as an agreement between a two or more parties whereby one or more has voluntarily contributed cash to finance, in whole or in part, the production of a an artistic project, in this case a musical recording by a specific artist/s and the subsequent promotion of the project, in return for credit for having done so.
Neither co-branding partners nor underwriters may necessarily have a history recording and distributing music. If we speak strictly of a 'new music paradigm', they usually do not.
In fact, for the purposes of raising funds in order to record, tour and pay the rent, EVERY company is a potential record company –from the local shops on Main Street to whomever happens to top the Fortune 400 list in a given year, and whether they sell futuristic widgets or old fashioned potpourri.
Of course, not every company can provide distribution, but depending on your specific needs you may or may not need a major label network in order to fulfill your own professional and artistic goals.
The important thing is that such deals are structured as mutually beneficial CO-BRANDING contracts, or as corporate sponsorship of an artistic enterprise, but never as label/bank providing a lopsided loan to the customer/artist. Because if all you need is a loan in order for your dreams to come true, there are cheaper ways to secure that loan, even in today's economy.
More to the point, artists can stop doing business as applicants for loans, if they find a way to position themselves as suitable investments in another company's or collaborator's business strategy.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Bands and Brands
In a recent article I recommended reading Jon Pareles excellent article published a few days ago in the New York Times ['Songs From the Heart of a Marketing Plan' (12/24/08)].
Briefly, Pareles notes, laments, and finally accepts the increasing (and seemingly unreversible) trend of bands aligning with brands.
I don't share Pareles' pain, except in my own dreamy romantic notion of 1979, which now seems a long, long time ago.
Otherwise, Pareles' recent article gives me no reason to think that we aren't continuing a shift in this direction, so if you're not comfortable with the way things are going now, the ride is going to be a rocky one indeed. For better or for worse, such ideas are perhaps more valid than ever, because before they were only concepts. Today, it seems like I bear witness to their evolving manifestation every time I hear about a new co-branding agreement between an artist and a product, service or experience.
What is so interesting to persons my age (anyone north of 18) about these relationships is that only ten years ago they would be framed as a story about an artist selling out. Now, they are presented as a Band and Brand aligning in strategic partnership for mutual benefit, to the surprise of just about nobody.
Maybe that's because what makes these agreements so uniquely post millennial, is that they are indeed constructed as co-branding agreements, and not merely conceived as another traditional sponsorship or endorsement deal. Those kinds of brand/band relationships are so yesteryear.
Pareles laments that artists can no longer be independent without record companies to support them. But perhaps the reality is that now, more than ever, artists are free to remain independent, for no longer beholden to record companies, they can still make a pretty good living –if they can find another source of funding to serve as a music industry surrogate.
Of course, you don't even need the construct of an 'Industry' to make it happen. You just need revenue and a means to enable distribution.
But speaking of surrogates, the co-branding paradigm isn't just for indie artists, either. The model is finally being put to test by some of today's biggest pop stars.
The Eagles not only inked a deal with Wal-Mart, the retailer is featuring them in a $40 million ad campaign. Think about it. This isn't your typical endorsement deal, and in fact it's the polar opposite of a 360 deal. It's co-branding: There are no masters or servants here, and no one is endorsing anything. Rather, separate parties share an agreement towards a common goal, or to reach parallel but individual goals.
Along these same lines, earlier this year Jay Z left "his longtime record label, Def Jam, for a roughly $150 million package with the concert giant Live Nation that includes financing for his own entertainment venture, in addition to recordings and tours for the next decade" (The New York Times).
It's also old news by now, but in 2007 Live Nation struck multi million dollar pacts with both U2 and Madonna. At the time Madonna told the Associated Press, “The paradigm in the music business has shifted and as an artist and a business woman, I have to move with that shift” (MSNBC).
Pundits may argue the relative merits of such deals, but whatever you do, stop thinking of recorded music as a primary revenue source. The music simply gives access to a lifestyle and an Experience. It may or may not convey a deeper message, but it certainly is the songwriter's (and performer's) own sonic branding.
So, the Dance Diva's albums might not sell like they used to, but she continues to deliver a premium experience for which fans are willing to pay a collective 200 million per tour. The value of the actual songs on the free market? Who knows –at this point all the merchandise –including the albums– are souvenirs of an experience. Is this good or bad?
It depends what's more important to you: The so called integrity of a given song, or the experience delivered by the music. Hey, guess what –you can actually have it both ways:
Art is flexible that way!
Don't believe me? Listen, Music can save your soul on Sunday; score a sound track on Monday; pitch products on Tuesday; create venue ambience on Wednesday; act as a study aid Thursday; accompany you to the gym on Friday; rock the house on Saturday; –and come back Sunday morning and save your soul all over again!
Briefly, Pareles notes, laments, and finally accepts the increasing (and seemingly unreversible) trend of bands aligning with brands.
I don't share Pareles' pain, except in my own dreamy romantic notion of 1979, which now seems a long, long time ago.
Otherwise, Pareles' recent article gives me no reason to think that we aren't continuing a shift in this direction, so if you're not comfortable with the way things are going now, the ride is going to be a rocky one indeed. For better or for worse, such ideas are perhaps more valid than ever, because before they were only concepts. Today, it seems like I bear witness to their evolving manifestation every time I hear about a new co-branding agreement between an artist and a product, service or experience.
What is so interesting to persons my age (anyone north of 18) about these relationships is that only ten years ago they would be framed as a story about an artist selling out. Now, they are presented as a Band and Brand aligning in strategic partnership for mutual benefit, to the surprise of just about nobody.
Maybe that's because what makes these agreements so uniquely post millennial, is that they are indeed constructed as co-branding agreements, and not merely conceived as another traditional sponsorship or endorsement deal. Those kinds of brand/band relationships are so yesteryear.
Pareles laments that artists can no longer be independent without record companies to support them. But perhaps the reality is that now, more than ever, artists are free to remain independent, for no longer beholden to record companies, they can still make a pretty good living –if they can find another source of funding to serve as a music industry surrogate.
Of course, you don't even need the construct of an 'Industry' to make it happen. You just need revenue and a means to enable distribution.
But speaking of surrogates, the co-branding paradigm isn't just for indie artists, either. The model is finally being put to test by some of today's biggest pop stars.
The Eagles not only inked a deal with Wal-Mart, the retailer is featuring them in a $40 million ad campaign. Think about it. This isn't your typical endorsement deal, and in fact it's the polar opposite of a 360 deal. It's co-branding: There are no masters or servants here, and no one is endorsing anything. Rather, separate parties share an agreement towards a common goal, or to reach parallel but individual goals.
Along these same lines, earlier this year Jay Z left "his longtime record label, Def Jam, for a roughly $150 million package with the concert giant Live Nation that includes financing for his own entertainment venture, in addition to recordings and tours for the next decade" (The New York Times).
It's also old news by now, but in 2007 Live Nation struck multi million dollar pacts with both U2 and Madonna. At the time Madonna told the Associated Press, “The paradigm in the music business has shifted and as an artist and a business woman, I have to move with that shift” (MSNBC).
Pundits may argue the relative merits of such deals, but whatever you do, stop thinking of recorded music as a primary revenue source. The music simply gives access to a lifestyle and an Experience. It may or may not convey a deeper message, but it certainly is the songwriter's (and performer's) own sonic branding.
So, the Dance Diva's albums might not sell like they used to, but she continues to deliver a premium experience for which fans are willing to pay a collective 200 million per tour. The value of the actual songs on the free market? Who knows –at this point all the merchandise –including the albums– are souvenirs of an experience. Is this good or bad?
It depends what's more important to you: The so called integrity of a given song, or the experience delivered by the music. Hey, guess what –you can actually have it both ways:
Art is flexible that way!
Don't believe me? Listen, Music can save your soul on Sunday; score a sound track on Monday; pitch products on Tuesday; create venue ambience on Wednesday; act as a study aid Thursday; accompany you to the gym on Friday; rock the house on Saturday; –and come back Sunday morning and save your soul all over again!
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Rise of the Creative Class and the New Value of Art
As others have noted, we have in a sense, moved from the era of the MBA to the age of the MFA. The creative classes are no longer starving in garrets, but changing the way you see and hear the world, beginning with the iPod you're listening to right now. Never mind that the baby boomers who popularized rock are now retirees. Everybody who was once an anti-establishment outsider, today is a representative of the (culturally) ruling classes.
Interesting, too, to note that with the rise of the creative class there has been a noticeable decline in the value of art. Sure, Van Goghs and Picassos will continue to fetch millions of dollars at auction, but what about commercial art? Or more to the point: What is the real value of reproducible works?
Similarly, if you can carry a thousand songs (or more) around with you, then really, how valuable is each individual song going to be to the listener? Songs, like singers, as the saying goes, have become a dime a dozen. And actually, they're worth even less than that – I mean, whose paying for music these days, anyway, but adults of a certain age?
In light of that, it's simply practical to consider, that if you're an artist, who is the real client/customer? Is it the individual who enjoys the free entertainment? Or is the person or company who funds its production? Every band knows the promoter is the real client. In this regard, the audience can be viewed simply as a way to measure value any given band has to a given promoter. In other words, a sold out house means very good Nielsen ratings and your band stands a good chance of being renewed, so to speak.
Network television has always had to deal with this balancing act (between art and commerce). The content is ostensibly created for the enjoyment of non-paying masses. But the customer is actually the advertiser who makes the programming possible. Producing content within such a model isn't necessarily selling out, if you're working on projects that don't compromise your ethics. But you may have to work within certain limitations regarding format and style and whether or not such content is appropriate for a given demographic. Does this make it less art? I don't know. Tex Avery and Chuck Jones gave their best years to Warner Bros., and I don't think of either of them sell outs.
Outside poets and painters, I can't think of any art form that isn't in some way collaborative, and therefore subject to compromise.
The question is not whether you must do one thing or the other, but are you clever enough to do both?
Can I re-contextualize my relationship with my clients in the way an athlete frames his or her relationship with a sponsor? Will doing so compromise my artistic integrity? Does Tiger Woods alter his swing on behalf of his sponsors? Absolutely not (except in so far as he always tries his best), and yet his sponsors are all too happy to associate themselves with Tiger, even on a losing day.
The interesting thing here is that you don't have to pay to see Tiger's 'performance'. If you catch him on TV, you can watch him for free. His appearance on your Television is complimentary, offered by advertisers who hope you'll consider this act of charity the next time you make a purchase. And yet Tiger appears to be making a healthy living without compromising his ideals. Granted he might lose sponsors if he suddenly started stitching in political statements next to the sports logos on his apparel, but he might also attract others for just the same reason.
As an artist, I wonder, what would happen if I started thinking about myself as a brand with mission? How would my life change if I actually conceived a personal vision statement? Would any of that negate my self perception as an artist? Why aren't more artists thinking the same way?
As it happens, in 2008, a lot of artists –and individuals– certainly are.
In their book Born Digital, authors John Palfrey and Urs Gasser call children who were born into and raised in the digital world 'digital natives'. The tag makes sense now, but I suspect when historians look back at our age, they will also note how post Gen X generations were also perceptibly Branded @ Birth.
Interesting, too, to note that with the rise of the creative class there has been a noticeable decline in the value of art. Sure, Van Goghs and Picassos will continue to fetch millions of dollars at auction, but what about commercial art? Or more to the point: What is the real value of reproducible works?
Similarly, if you can carry a thousand songs (or more) around with you, then really, how valuable is each individual song going to be to the listener? Songs, like singers, as the saying goes, have become a dime a dozen. And actually, they're worth even less than that – I mean, whose paying for music these days, anyway, but adults of a certain age?
In light of that, it's simply practical to consider, that if you're an artist, who is the real client/customer? Is it the individual who enjoys the free entertainment? Or is the person or company who funds its production? Every band knows the promoter is the real client. In this regard, the audience can be viewed simply as a way to measure value any given band has to a given promoter. In other words, a sold out house means very good Nielsen ratings and your band stands a good chance of being renewed, so to speak.
Network television has always had to deal with this balancing act (between art and commerce). The content is ostensibly created for the enjoyment of non-paying masses. But the customer is actually the advertiser who makes the programming possible. Producing content within such a model isn't necessarily selling out, if you're working on projects that don't compromise your ethics. But you may have to work within certain limitations regarding format and style and whether or not such content is appropriate for a given demographic. Does this make it less art? I don't know. Tex Avery and Chuck Jones gave their best years to Warner Bros., and I don't think of either of them sell outs.
Outside poets and painters, I can't think of any art form that isn't in some way collaborative, and therefore subject to compromise.
The question is not whether you must do one thing or the other, but are you clever enough to do both?
Can I re-contextualize my relationship with my clients in the way an athlete frames his or her relationship with a sponsor? Will doing so compromise my artistic integrity? Does Tiger Woods alter his swing on behalf of his sponsors? Absolutely not (except in so far as he always tries his best), and yet his sponsors are all too happy to associate themselves with Tiger, even on a losing day.
The interesting thing here is that you don't have to pay to see Tiger's 'performance'. If you catch him on TV, you can watch him for free. His appearance on your Television is complimentary, offered by advertisers who hope you'll consider this act of charity the next time you make a purchase. And yet Tiger appears to be making a healthy living without compromising his ideals. Granted he might lose sponsors if he suddenly started stitching in political statements next to the sports logos on his apparel, but he might also attract others for just the same reason.
As an artist, I wonder, what would happen if I started thinking about myself as a brand with mission? How would my life change if I actually conceived a personal vision statement? Would any of that negate my self perception as an artist? Why aren't more artists thinking the same way?
As it happens, in 2008, a lot of artists –and individuals– certainly are.
In their book Born Digital, authors John Palfrey and Urs Gasser call children who were born into and raised in the digital world 'digital natives'. The tag makes sense now, but I suspect when historians look back at our age, they will also note how post Gen X generations were also perceptibly Branded @ Birth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)