john

Me too. Well semi-serious. I had read Hobo's topic so I knew there were some good guitarist's replying... that was why I laughed when I made the comment about struggling with technique... and why I added "lights blue touch paper", but no one rose to the bait lol Ach well. It's all good. Apart from harmonics apparently.

Yeah, and using distortion or effects of any kind. Oh and strumming. Picking, forget it, and if you are a big smarty pants and play fingerstyle hang your head in shame! Guitars are for looking at! I guess it depends what tradition you follow... for me it's somewhat pretentious to pull up a guitarist for using harmonics on the grounds of pretentiousness. It speaks of a mind that focuses a bit too much on what so called tastemakers say. That and perhaps someone that struggles with technique lol. A bit dated if you use them some ways. Cheesy sometimes, but hardly the crime of the century. Used in an innovative or creative way they are just as valid as any other guitar technique. (Lights blue touch paper and runs for cover)

Hey Eduardo from Espania, welcome to Songstuff

I think yes they can be used, but lyrics and their meaning take on a life of their own. Unless you mourn a public figure almost all listeners will relate your lyrics to their situation. I think many writers writing deeply personal, grief inspired lyrics are not ready for that... they are still in sharing their feelings mode, an outpouring. If you are comfortable with the adoption and sometimes meaning adaptation, I see no problem. The suitability of grief inspired lyrics is another issue, as is the volume of sad works writers can generate while griefstricken. All of a sudden all new songs are desolate and sad, and often deeply personal. When confronted with grief I have written several songs, most of which I chose not to release. One song I did release after a friend died in a fire meant something to all her friends, at the time... also a lot of other people who had lost someone identified with the lyrics... however I was not prepared for the fact that the elements of the song that were deeply personal were often also personal to my friends. It served as a regular reminder of the loss. An unhappy reminder. While my friends were happy to remember our lost friend, they wanted to do it when they chose to, which was pretty well not on a night out. Had it been a song focused on the life once lead and all the fun in it, it might have been welcome at such times, but as it bridged the gap of loss, it became difficult, and painful. So I dropped it from the set. Much to the annoyance of band mates and fans. In all honesty I couldn't face playing the song at all for a long time after that.

That is another category in our upcoming database

If you look at larger artists, they use niche music artistically to grow their style but also to grow their fanbase. Back with Bowie it was on an album by album basis. A more modern approach is to co-write and guest perform with niche artists to introduce you to new audiences. I think, no matter how much we enjoy doing what we do, nothing is lost by trying new things. Even if only for the buzz of trying and learning new things, for me that is worth it. That said, even if your music is compared to Pink Floyd... then you can target soft rock, progressive rock and of course sites and communities where Pink Floyd fans exist... if only because people who like music similar to yours already hang out there. Try contacting the site owners and see if you can interest them in your music. Hopefully they can blog about you or include you in a newsletter. This is a good approach for all the artists you find yourself compared to.

No real hassle. In the UK it counts as a kind of club. In essence it is an unofficial not-for-profit set up, of which clubs and community groups often are. It is an area I want to bring clarity to. Although a cost is involved, I am investigating moving Songstuff to being fully registered as a not-for-profit entity. There are, if I remember correctly, roughly 8 basic not-for-profit types, 4 of which are full charities. I will post a full explanation and justification for this path forward, including implications for the community, the site as a whole and for me personally in a separate topic, article or site page. I think clarity is necessary and an official not-for-profit would be a welcome step for the future of the community.

Very true. You may be interested to know that among the intended changes in Songstuff is the introduction of a database of music industry contacts. This includes an index of more than 1,000 such music blogs, categorised by music genre.At this stage we plan to introduce a subscriber based donation and access to the database is part of our way of thanking members for agreeing to make regular donations. Such a subscription is important in that it allows Songstuff to make budget based plans which is far less certain with unpredictable, though very welcome, occasional donations. The plan is to make it much easier for members to find the right key bloggers to support their promotion needs. @Monostone, I will happily move the posts over to create a new topic from Richard's post onwards.

You are right, it doesn't work that way.... people don't just pay for your tracks from nowhere. Fans can be recruited in other ways (than live), but they mostly involve a lot of money and back scratching. Generally it involves high levels of media coverage, where fans become transferable. Remember the Monkees? The Partridge Family? Fans were established in a TV show and transferred to the band. X Factor, American Idol and The Voice all create stars but there is a proxy live gig element there. One of the first I remember crossing from a hype bubble (instead of a talent show, the Disney Channel, or a TV show) was Bros. Their first live show was Wembley. They hadn't gigged anywhere before that, had no fan base from a show... it was all built from publicity and media hype along with saturation airplay on the radio. Of course such saturation is beyond pretty well everyone but a select few. Then again coverage recruits fans. Until very recently radio remained the number one method of new music discovery while YouTube was the main way listeners kept listening. Assuming you don't need to recruit enough fans to fill Wembley, you don't need that level of saturation. Mainstream radio remains an almost impossible nut for indie to crack, but there are other ways in. Radio may be number 2 in music discovery, but you'll be glad to know that YouTube is now number one. Some other useful stats to help fight the doom and gloom: 71% of music users access licensed music 1/3 of 16-24 year olds now pay for a music streaming service 37% use streaming services. 82% of YouTube users use it for music (93% of 16-24 year olds) 58% of YouTube users use it to find new music (69% of 16-24 year olds) 48% of internet users pay for music in some form Hardly time to hang out the flags and throw a party, but it's not the blackest days of piracy either. There is opportunity to recruit fans. There is the possibility of making money from a number of revenue streams. Enough to live from? For most, no, but it is possible. Much more possible than it once was.... Labels make money from artists across a number of platforms, but the two main ways they make money from the music itself is through sales to fans and sync. Streams contribute but most offer pitiful rates. YouTube is a valuable contributor, making it a wise choice for a number of reasons.

Welcome to Songstuff MacKenzi, I hope we can be what you need us to be

Hey Chumpy In biz terms different groups of people equate to different potential income streams. Listeners only matter with regards to two direct income streams (spotify etc payments and potentially more lucrative YouTube plays) and their ability to grow fans. There after the purpopse is to convert fans into superfans, because superfans still buy everything going. Fans are somewhat less reliable. It should be noted that a fan of a local band is no different to a fan of an international act... they are still regarded with a degree of awe and possessiveness. The superfan theory applies just as well to both. The closely guarded secrets (which are in truth not that mystical) of converting fans into superfans is the bit most indies have no idea about. @HoboSage of course you don't. No sense spoiling your fans. Make them really work for your acknowledgement. Cheers John

Hi This relates to the topic about the point in releasing albums. As I said there, I read regularly, from indie musicians and unsigned indie bands, that money cannot be made from music. I hear the same from full-time but self-releasing artists. From artists signed to established labels I hear simply that less money is made from music than it used to be possible to make. Much less in many cases. Firstly, things have changed, but not entirely. A change in expectation is needed. Also worth noting, that for many a change in ambition has occurred. "The old model does not work" is largely true, but that does not mean all models do not work. What can be achieved, or what is likely to be achieved has changed. Experimenting with new business models, new release models is ongoing. Little is certain. Even motivations are broadly varied. There is a good reason pros aren't giving their music away for free. As far as low level pro musicians go I think there are differences. The level of required knowledge for one. Developed connections for another. There are many many reasons many artists fail to make sales. Most small artists are not marketing experts. Most individuals are not experts either. Many do not have fan mailing lists. Most have poor fan engagement. Even with small labels much lies in the hands of inexperienced bands. Many think Simple activity on social media is sufficient. Few have coordinated promotion and publicity campaigns. Fewer still employ professional promotion and publicity companies. For many, building fans involves releasing more music, a live video or two and inane or simple promotional social media posts. Many spam their social media followers and think activity means posting any old news. Many limit most creativity to their music, and forget about being creative with promotion, packaging, merch etc. And yes, I know Merch tends to be primarily for large established bands. Many have spent zero effort establishing brand awareness, brand advocates, promotion networks, cross-promotion opportunities, establishing or supporting fan clubs. Few harness incentives effectively, if at all. Most have done very little to build fan profiles to help identify marketing channels and approaches Only the more organised will have a formal release plan I could go on. The fact is, in the old music industry most would not have got to release their music either. If they did, it probably wouldn't have sold many copies either (cue countless stories of stored vinyl or CDs under bed and in cupboards). Those that did tended to do so because someone knew someone who had some experience. The list above would have applied then too (at least the non-tech reliant stuff). It's just that most musicians didn't have the opportunity to realise they knew nothing about selling music, so they didn't confront that specific issue. Nowadays, they have the technology to make great music, but artists have almost no know how about turning great music into hits. Is this a surprise? Chances are that if you are not doing the items on the above list, your profit making capability will be impaired. The wrong conclusion here is that such things cannot be done in an indie environment. Another is that because you think you can't do these things now, learning them is not worth it. There are other flaws in that conclusion I won't go into here. Most common is the reason that "I am a musician, I don't know/want to know that shit". A good cop out. Another common one is where musicians opt out of competing on any old excuse (More common in free release market). You can't fail if you don't compete. What has changed to a degree is the release process and the size of albums in some markets. The music industry relies upon preciously guarded knowledge, contacts, budget, creativity, tools and processes. The true currency is, and has been for decades, the number of fans you have. Get in any conversation with A&R and that is the burning question, and for good reason. For them, good music is expected. Fans are what hooks their interest, because they know that fans mean money. We aren't talking social media likes, or Soundcloud plays. Even paying customers isn't it (though sales are definitely their language. Followers... to a degree. Mailing list subscribers are more hitting the mark. The music industry runs on lists. Fan lists. Contact lists. Project lists. If you don't think you can sell your music it is only right to ask yourself why? Piracy? It has made a huge dent, that cannot be denied. Others are selling music, so how can they make it work? Not all manage to sell their music, but that is always the case, always was. Sometimes it is the uncomfortable truth that our music just isn't good enough. Often it is our approach, and the environment we created for our music to exist in. Our poor marketing. Our lack of experience. Our unrealistic expectation. Often, especially with youth, it is a reliance on the very unrealistic expectation, that we will "be discovered" or that somehow the gaping holes in our plans will be filled by someone who will arrive and fill in the gaps. Often it is simply fooling ourselves into thinking that our music should be enough and that we don't really need to spend ages learning a ton of business crap. Sad, but they are all, very common scenarios. A common trait I find with older musicians, the guys that were in bands and went around the block a few times, is that they feel they are too old, and don't really want a career in music. They just want to make music. I not think wanting success automatically means you have to pursue a career. Nor do I think it involves making millions. What success is, varies. To each person it is different. if your dream is that of millions in the banks and being an international superstar, achieving your dream always was roughly the odds of winning the lottery. I think the difference now is that the middle ground of being a music pro who earns well enough to make a living us more easily achievable For some, success is about free plays. Is the measure of worth of our music that of how many free plays we can get? Surely that is a measure of how many people we can put our music in front of? Hardly a clap on the back is it? On some level for all, other than artistic goals, it is surely about people liking what we do? More people? It would be nice. But it needn't be our only ambition or realistic expectation. A bit of a ramble, I know, but hey..... Thoughts anyone? cheers John

But they do read novels. Yes they buy books, on Amazon etc. Book shops are struggling Kindles etc are booming. Who knows Randy, if Mr Trump gets his wish of getting rid of the free internet as we know it, maybe piracy willl take a knock. Hopefully not behind a Chinese-like firewall of censored internet! It might have an impact on the US market. Mr Trump is nothing if not pro business, and the music biz was a biggie. (I am not looking for a political debate of rights and wrongs, but the implications of his controlled internet may well have a music industry impact, at least within the USA.) As for music, one thing the music industry knows is that fans, true fans, still buy music The buzz word these days is "super fans". The industry is geared to turn listeners to fans, and fans to super fans... and largely, it works.

Hi Tim Vinyl and CDs are formats. Additionally, vinyl, albeit for mainly EDM is making a comeback. It will never be like the best days. Too much has shifted. For me it is not about an imagined optimism of a yesteryear musical nirvana, a belief that things have not changed or that the world has not moved on. It is a realism about what is possible and what is not possible. What is and what isn't. Back in the long, long ago, it wasn't easy to make money as a musician. Indeed it was difficult to get paid from recordings at all. After the industry became established and evolved into a recording marketplace, guess what, it still wasn't easy to make a living. Most musicians relied upon gigs and did well to earn enough to make recordings. What did happen was a path for dubious success appeared, and others were, to a degree, able to mimic it. It still required a lot of luck. Success was still closer to winning the lottery than anything else. The once established pathways have shifted. There are significant changes. It doesn't mean everything has changed. That is not the same as expecting old vinyl and old CDs to fly off the shelves.Physical format is not the same as song collections. Less books sell, yet there are more opportunities for unpublished authors to sell their own books. Yes you can still get published by a known publisher, but there are less opportunities through traditional publishers precisely because of the variety of formats on offer, the rise of self-publishing and the ability of different publishers to adapt their catalog. Music sales are similar. Formats are diverse. Opportunity for self-publishing, self-release, are more achievable. You are indeed right that changes have come. At the same time, changes are always coming. The great thing about an album is that in electronic formats, songs can be sold individually. The two approaches need not be mutually exclusive. Chosing to sell only singles has it's virtues and it's drawbacks. They are simply different approaches and sometimes more of a gimmick than anything else. Cheers John

I would add something to my earlier comments. I read regularly, from indie musicians and unsigned indie bands, that money cannot be made from music. I hear the same from full-time but self-releasing artists. From artists signed to established labels I hear simply that less money is made from music than it used to be possible to make. Some artists cite artistic reasons for either maintaining releasing albums or for stopping doing them, though there are very few who cite the latter. Labels sometimes cite business reasons for changing how some artists will be releasing music. Certainly things have been shaken up. Both indie artists and labels are experimenting with new business models, new release models. Few things are certain. Most experiments are short lived, and are mainly about creating space, differentiating themselves from other artists, or even emphasising anti-establishment credentials. I ask these questions (to make the point) Of the professionals, how many are giving their music away for free? just as a guesstimate percentage. Of the professionals, how many are stopping releasing albums? Yet again as a guesstimate percentage. I would estimate the percentages are pretty low. As far as low level pro musicians go I think there are differences. Just not necessarily the differences most think of. These issues tend to impact the viability of albums as money making endeavours more than listening habits. Go on iTunes. Songs are still gathered in albums and EPs. What has has changed somewhat is the release process and the size of albums in some markets. Believe me, if releasing albums did not make money in comparison with doing free releases, albums would no longer exist. At all. Labels are ruthless about making money. Different markets are different, largely dictated by listening demographics.

Ed Sheerin released about 9 EPs on his own before he was signed

Hi and a big welcome to Songstuff!

Hey Steph, good to meet you. Welcome to Songstuff!

Hi Sliqrz, Welcome to Songstuff! Good to meet you

Hey Cole, welcome to Songstuff!

I can see that working for Royksopp (I like them too). Their market is not so image dominated. Their marketing is not as big a budget. Their branding is not as heavy. Maybe we can call it EP and mini EP lol There are a few theories on where the future lies. Everything from loss leading music, to rolling single releases, and even a few who think if they just hang tight with the old model it will come back around again.

Richard, I am not saying "business as usual" or more of the same. Short albums, short EPs and singles is more or less what you are saying. Filler and experiments for singles, yes, but EPs and short albums allow them to have themes... and that plays well with branding, with tours and tour promotion... otherwise albums and EPs would already have disappeared. Physical CDs may still be around but my guess is they would be more about consumer choice of tracks and burned as needed in shops with whatever artist artwork is appropriate. There is a strong marketing benefit to a big splash and strong identity. That is far harder to do on the budget of a single. The need for reinvention is useful for artists for many reasons. Relaunches give more of an excuse for push marketing. People pay more attention when the message is new and fresh. They pay more attention with the difference between this model and the last is more marked. Incremental change does not really offer such opportunity. Music, software fashion, all develop incrementally. True some increments are bigger than others. People tend to buy incrementally too, except with binge buying at Christmas. This has pretty well always been the case. Now tech makes it easier to support it, because it is less expensive to do so.... but that was never really the problem with incremental release... otherwise singles would always have been the method of release, physical media or not. undoubtedly distribution costs are lower. It is easier to make incremental releases, and buyers are used to the ease of track purchase.... but that is not the same as batch release. Batches, in thus case albums, allows budgets to be pulled together. They allow the exploitation of brand themes, musical and otherwise. They allow marketers to make bigger budget splashes. The make it easier to hut with greater impact. Albums, EPs and singles mixed together allow the benefits of always present artists to be married with larger impact brand advertising. Albums and EPs being smaller make that more maintainable. Singles in particular allow them to explore new market segments. Its all a bit like mining. In mining you use bore holes (singles) to test for the presence of a mineral. A test pit can then be dug (EP) and when lucrative a seam will be opened with a full mine gallery (LP). As ever in the music industry there are artistic and business reasons and choices. You can guarantee that if albums did not serve a sound business purpose they would already has disappeared.

Short answer is yes, although I agree with Richard, an EP was anywhere from 4 to 6 songs traditionally, while an album (LP) was usually 8-12. Albums will lose a track or two for more rapid turn around. Albums are more than just a collection of songs, especially for the pop market, and often with rock. They allow the artist to indulge fashion, similar or related concepts and styles, and then let them draw a line under it and move on. Think of Bowie, Madonna, Lady Gaga etc. They established a strong image by reinventing how they looked and sounded. They rely on marked characteristics to connect them. Sometimes that is something image related but usually it is something distinctive about their music. The character of the voice, the approach to production. With rolling single releases musicians lose the burst in activity of "something new" because change seems to be so gradual. This mutes response to changes. Regular singles in the rolling single mode will still occur, even mini 4 song EPs. These allow artists to have small pockets of experimentation... which is a good thing, and allow them to take advantage of the instant access generation, while retaining the step-wise benefits of the LP. Only rolling singles is a problematic model. Change becomes unremarkable, and that is often the death of an artist. Cheers John.