30frames

If a musical act or artist is good (or lucky) they get to stick around long enough to have a lengthy and profitable career. If they are really good (or extra lucky) they might stick around so long they don’t want to be in their own videos any more.

This post is about the game of ‘hide a band’ that certain videos play. Squirreling away the artist in the deep background (or out of the clip all together) because their looks no longer appeal to the demographic is a tried and true technique.

Let’s be clear. I am NOT talking about the kind of (often indie/alt/dance) artists that never appear in their own videos. I am also not talking about a creative concept that is based around not showing the performance (Smack My Bitch Up) – especially if the artist has other clips that do feature them prominently (Firestarter).

I am also NOT talking about the director that often chooses to use flaming people or dancing Oscar Winners. This ‘no star on screen’ idea goes way back (Queen) – and can often make for highly effective clips. I am also not talking about putting supermodels or Fletch in your video as surrogates, none of these videos mentioned above really seem to qualify as band hiding.

The phenomenon I am talking about is an artist who has been front and center in their videos, but then – as age and the rock and roll lifestyle take their toll – they step aside to let a younger face carry the day. Hide-a-band is actually easiest to recognize when you look for a clip that the artist/band is in, but their performance is pushed to the margins. The artist is there, but like a magician’s assistant – wouldn’t you really rather look at someone pretty?

The past masters of this genre are clearly Aerosmith. With their dueling Silverstone videos for ‘Cryin’ and ‘Crazy’ – the band was able to keep the parking lots rocking by giving the MTV viewers some age appropriate eye candy to distract them from the parent-aged musicians who actually made the songs. Aerosmith was IN these videos, but the focus was definitely moved over to someone or something else.

Bon Jovi used this approach with ‘It’s My Life’ where the video spends most of its time with a teen-friendly protagonist fighting his way towards the band’s performance. The New Jersey rockers are definitely in the clip – but there are plenty of stunts performed by a teen to make viewers think of their own, obstacle plagued adolescence rather that marveling at ‘What the f&*% happened to the guitarist’s face?!?’

Mick gave us Shannyn Sossamon, Lenny Kravitz and some nausea inducing body-mounted cameras so we wouldn’t notice that he was not with the rest of the Stones.

Elton John even had a young and sexy Timberlake play Elton John, well before he got the gigs box dicking and jizz mopping.

There must be more. I keep thinking there was a late-period George Michael clip like this. Send any suggestions along while I hide my ancient visage over here behind some parkour guys or hipster skateboarders.

Labels: aerosmith, celebrity, He Who Is Always Named, hipsters, Isham, Madonna, MTV, music video, Prodigy, Timberlake, YouTube

The LA Times did another one of their “Ultimate Top Ten Lists” – cataloging the artists that have made the most money in the last year. The musician with the biggest/longest tour are always the champs and in 2007 it was The Police that earned the most. Less than 10% of their earnings were from selling music and the bulk of the cash came from concert ticket sales – it helps to have an fan base with well-paying jobs (i.e old people like The Police and the Stones).

Digital tracks grew, but still ended up being a drop in the bucket for artists. The ring-tone phenomenon also does not look quite as savior-y as it once appeared:

"Likewise, although some performers are developing comfortable incomes from ring-tone sales, the mostly young R&B, hip-hop and pop acts who placed highest on SoundScan's ring-tone/master-tone tallies aren't anywhere near the top of either concert tour or album sales rankings. So ring tone isn't included -- yet -- because it wouldn't affect any rankings in the Ultimate Top 10." - LAT

The fact that touring is such a big part of the money makes it clear why Live Nation wanted that fat chunk of the ticket and merch from Madonna (and apparently Jonas Bros as well).

CDs have become the loss leader for the artist – the thing that they do to get them back out on the road for some more of those lucrative concert dates.

The music is the loss leader for the merchants at Best Buy or Target – getting people in the door with discounted CDs where they will (hopefully) buy the more profitable Monster Cables and fabric softener.

The music video was always the loss leader for the record label – the thing that they pay for (and make zero money from) to promote the music, but the music itself seems to have become another loss leader. You can see why music video budgets are shrinking – the money the labels have is shrinking AND the music video process is now even one more step removed from the profits (touring and merch).

Music videos were never profitable for labels on their own, but at least they were tied to the core business - they helped sell records. Now that the core business is concert tickets and t-shirts?

Each step removed from the actual income, means less dollars makes it through. Like college buddies sipping your beer before they pass it on down the stadium row from the vendor – the thirsty guy at the end only ends up with backwash and sheepish looks from his friends.

Maybe Live Nation wants to hire someone to make videos to show at concerts to encourage fans to go out to the lobby and enjoy some delicious Jonas Brothers t-shirts.

Labels: Madonna, media, music video, prod co

The business side of the music industry has been getting heavy coverage the past few days. From Britney’s video adventures with the vertical brass cylinder, to Radiohead’s groundbreaking (groundbreaking, I say!) new strategy and Madonna’s new school all-in-one deal with Live Nation. There has been plenty of hype, but …

The Britney thing? Next.

Radiohead and Madonna are intriguing because these are about new ways of music getting distributed and money being made off the music, tours and celebrity fragrances. The self produced digital-only record is definitely the direction of DIY music careers and I also think that (at least on some level) Madonna and Live Nation (LN) represent the way that “labels” will look in the future.

I have no idea how these experiments are going to work and remember that no one else does either. No matter how many orders Radiohead got the first day or how sure someone is that Madonna took LN to the cleaners – these are massive, complicated deals that cannot be classified as successes or failures for years to come. What they are, for now, is a new direction – and that is exciting.

I am always one to be skeptical of hype, a side effect of being in the hype business. Both Radiohead and LN employed the power of the press release to perfection these last weeks. They got massive coverage for their new ventures, with very little outlay for newspaper or TV ads. Free press is great and there has been lots of it over the past few weeks.

That being said, we all need to take a chill pill. Remember the iPhone launch? That was madness. Surely the world was about to end. My favorite story from then was the Mayor of Philly getting caught camping out on line (what, no assistant?!?) to get a glorious world-changing cellular thing-a-ma-jig. Well, time has passed and many people have an iPhone, more don’t – the world continues to spin. The cell phone marketplace is different, but no one in that industry thinks it is all sorted out yet. That is where we are with the “game changing” Radiohead and Madonna deals, it is still very early.

These new ideas are intriguing but you know who they work for? Established megastars. Say again – established acts with massive pre-existing fame.

The Madonna deal is all about concerts and other merchandise – so that kind of thing could work great for Dave Matthews or the Eagles – not so much for Talib Kweli or Kelly Clarkson. The Radiohead model of self releasing (heh, heh – self releasing) on-line might work for Linkin Park, but probably not for a new act.

These strategies are a refreshing change from the tired label group-think, but they are (at least so far) strange new directions that don’t really apply to most of the music industry. Selling your own record on your website happens all the time already (though the “name your own price” part is kinda new) and by and large no one cares.

All kinds of acts you have never heard of are already doing things very similar to what Radiohead is trying with this. Thousands of bands sell their music for nearly nothing on-line 24/7 – so why is it a big story now? Not because the strategy is so new, but because a very, very famous band is doing it. This is actually not a story about a “bold new direction” for the record industry, it is a story about a beloved band and their music that everyone is eager to hear.

The Madonna signing with LN is similar – not all that new. The deal that 19 Management strikes with the American Idol finalists is similar (I believe) regarding the sharing of various income streams, though the dollar values are much, much lower for Ruben Studdard and Fantasia than they are for Madonna.

Radiohead and Madonna are doing something new-ish – but what happens with their experiments is largely meaningless for the real future of the record industry. Maybe if Madonna cleans up then John Mellencamp and Mary J Blige may want/get similar arrangements – but what happens when all the famous musicians are gone?

U2 and Usher could find audiences releasing their own “digital only” recordings – but even if it works perfectly, what does that mean to a new band no one has heard of?

Everyone that can truly benefit from these deals (at least in a way I can imagine in the present day marketplace) is already super-ultra-mega-famous. Only the most established and renowned artists need apply.

Telling a new band or a newbie singer that self-releasing and all-in-one manage-labels are the future – is like telling a poor family struggling on food stamps that they need to make money – by purchasing an apartment building. Buying a nice six-unit building IS a good investment – but you need to already have a big bundle of cash to even make it into that game. Your friend’s band who plays down at the corner bar/roller-rink/basement is probably struggling to afford a twelver of beer. The idea of owning rental properties as a “solution” is pure fantasy land for them.

These “new strategies” are great things to try, especially if you are already wealthy from the old strategies of the traditional record label. Without the backing of Capitol, can Radiohead get every major newspaper to write about their website? People are eager to hear Radiohead’s new music because Thom Yorke is very talented AND because their “old” label invested lots and lots of money to make that talent into fame. Capitol got rich too, far richer that the band ever did off Yorke’s songs – but ask Radiohead if they want to start again at zero without major label support.

Like people that remember V-J Day, the artists that were made super-stars by the old label powers will die out and slip into unimportance. Can these new business models make stars, or just profit off and enrich existing ones?

What happens when all the famous musicians are gone?

Labels: Britney Spears, celebrity, death, insider, label, Madonna, music video, Radiohead, u2