Six months ago in this space, I wrote that "The freedom brought about by the decline of vinyl and the high production costs associated with producing it hasn't led to better music - just more of it."
The signs of the music apocalypse are becoming increasingly apparent. A year ago, 5 Magazine received maybe 40 promos a month. We now receive well over 200. At least half of these are EPs containing three or more distinct tracks (and at least half of those sound like Eric Cartman singing "She Works Hard for the Money" with a disco beat, but anyway...). In other words, the amount of music flowing down the pipe every month has multiplied about seven-fold in the course of a year.
And of those 200 promos, we might print reviews of maybe 20. You can see where I'm going with this, yes?
If you've gone ahead and started your own digital label in this climate, you've got my best wishes and sincere gratitude for getting into the arena in what was a horrible environment even before the great glut fell upon us. I can only assume that you're doing something you believe in. The world needs more people like that.
There's a very big difference, however, between making good music and getting it heard.
There are a number of guides - some good, some bad - on how to start and market your own digital label. I won't write another one here - I'm not qualified, and actually can't think of more than a half-dozen people on the entire planet who are (opinions = assholes, etc.) Everyone seems to enjoy dispensing advice on the subject and there's no shortage of rejects from the music industry selling you ebooks on how to GET FAMOUS NOW!
Instead, I can tell you the things that make me grab a track or press play instead of putting them in the slush pile for later consideration. Considering that I've written probably a few hundred reviews (and decided to write a few dozen feature stories based entirely on promos I've received), this could be useful if you're thinking of starting a label or if you already have one but would like to tighten up marketing.
The most important rule, which I think you can apply to everything nowadays, is: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
With production costs so low for a digital release, there's a temptation to do all kinds of things that would have been prohibitively expensive with vinyl. This is what's lead to the tremendous glut of filler material. And unfortunately, a lot of really good music is getting buried - not just by the glut of other releases in the market, but by the label itself which hasn't taken these words to heart.
THE REMIX GLUT
Just because you can release 12 remixes with a single, doesn't mean you should. In the old days, including a big-name remixer on a single meant shipping more units to distributors and stores. Obviously, you're not dealing with physical units when you're selling MP3s, but having a Johnny Fiasco or Mike Dunn or Louie Vega remix your track is definitely going to get it heard. Period. Stop reading now because if you've got Fiasco or Dunn or Vega remixing your shit, you really don't need to read anything from me.
That hasn't changed. Nor has the value of remixing a track for different markets, particularly with how fragmented the House scene is.
So remixes are good. And like everything else, you can carry it too far.
If you're including remixes just because they're from your friend, you've committed the fundamental mistake of thinking of yourself instead of your market. There's no reason why you can't release more remixes down the line. One of the cool developments of the digital marketplace is the extended remix collection, released months or even a year after the original single. It can add months to a track's lifespan. But those are already hit singles when the next batch of remixes hit the market - you can say that the market demanded more, and the label filled that demand with additional remixes.
But if you're taking a decent song and tacking 8 or 9 remixes onto it right out of the gate, and the remixers aren't named Fiasco, Dunn or Vega, you're not really doing yourself any favors.
You might think that it can't hurt. It can. People just aren't going to give the same sustained attention to an 11 track package of remixes by unknown names than they are to a tight 5 or 6 track package. Blame it on shortened attention spans, the fast pace of the world or just human nature.
Attention, like money, is finite. Having to slog through a number of uninspired and unnecessary remixes uses it up rather quickly.
The Catalog Glut
Just because you can release 75 tracks a year doesn't mean you should. I've yet to hear of any artist in any genre who could write five great songs in a month. And if you're really an artist, "great" should be what you're aspiring to.
Let me give you an example. Terry Hunter is one of the most prolific producers in House Music today. His independent T's Box Records puts out one quality release every month. Sometimes it's by Terry, sometimes it's by another artist - in addition to his own work, he's released tracks by Jazzy Jeff and Leonard Part Sixx, and his own tracks usually feature a different vocalist from previous ones.
Now, aside from richly produced tracks (which are properly arranged songs, with proper vocals), Terry probably has thousands of beat tracks lying around. Someone could steal the man's harddrive and probably have enough material in there for years of new releases.
Terry could very easily release them all, sell a few of each of them and in the short term scoop up enough money to buy a solid gold jacuzzi. He's doesn't, though, and I think the commonsense reason why he doesn't is that it would (a.) oversaturate the market and (b.) diminish the reputation for quality that people now associate with T's Box Records. Sure, he could cash in now, but he'd pay later.
Be like Terry (and don't forget the bling).
Now that's Terry Hunter - a producer who has built a reputation for decades, and a DJ that can headline any night in any town in damn near any city with a scene in the world. Your average producer probably doesn't even have that opportunity. And oversaturating the market when you're relatively unknown is commercial suicide.
Every now and then someone does it, and I can almost put a number on how long it will take for them to burn out, discouraged and demoralized (if you're curious: about five months). This will be someone that isn't even terribly well known locally, but pumps out four or five tracks a month regardless of the poor reception. In most cases, they're pretty young and enamored with the instant feedback of someone (maybe someone just being nice) saying how much they love it.
But the balance sheet doesn't lie, and no one can feed their family based on positive feedback on myspace. You need sales, not bumps on a message board.
The Album Glut
I'm continually mystified by young, up-and-coming artists still working on their name who release full albums without much of a business plan. Everyone these days is releasing an album. It's like how after Star Wars, every director felt he had a trilogy in him just waiting to get out. But I'm here to tell you: Just because you have 12 tracks you're happy with doesn't mean you should release an album.
Jay-J, Fred Everything and Miguel Migs have all released albums in the past year, and we've written feature stories on all of them. That's because before an album hits the streets, they have a full release schedule already planned. They know which singles will be released, in what order, and have a general idea who is doing the remixes, if they're not already in the can. Sure, they can change things up down the line, but they're not simply throwing 12 tracks together and chucking it out there as basically a super extended play EP. And they'll be touring in support of that album for probably over a year.
In short, they have a business plan. An album is something that you build toward, after your reputation is somewhat established and you're ready to take it to the next level.
I've received endless "albums" however which are basically 12 track EPs, from people relatively unknown locally and completely unknown nationally. There not only won't be a tour, but I don't think they could get many people to attend an album release party. The quality of the music is sort of irrelevant to the argument here, but it's almost uniformly true that the majority of these albums are also made up of instrumental, sample-heavy tracks rather than songs.
(I'm not saying this to be cruel. Everyone starts somewhere. But in the past, a young blood with some good-not-great music didn't have the opportunity to press a full record of mostly mediocre tracks unless he was rich and didn't care about seeing a return on his investment. Today, there are far too many people selling themselves and their music short by doing this, and I don't think any of their buddies or people bumping their music on myspace have the balls to tell them.)
And as it is with the remix glut, so it is with the album glut. Reviewing an album is no problem when there are 12 great songs. It's a chore when you're staring in the face of 12 "jazzy" instrumentals that have clean high hats and not much else. In the middle of those 12 may be one gem, a good track that stands out - or would have if you hadn't surrounded it with 11 mediocre bits of filler.
"Music for Losers" is from the fabulous lpcoverlover.com. Photo of Terry Hunter and Andre Hatchett by Czarina Mirani, 5 Magazine.
