When I first saw these pieces by Jordan Puopolo, I stopped everything else I was doing. It seemed appropriate to just sit there, looking at them. You know how some things just feel right? Well, I hope so. Because it’s a great moment, and one I found in this concept. Vibrant colors fuse with an aged beauty, seeming to illustrate an idea that withstood the test of time. I don’t care how young or old you are, there’s a magical quality to flight. It remains a beautiful, striking thing, regardless of how often you experience a takeoff or look out at the clouds. I see this reflected in the powerful streaks of color. They can’t be contained, nor should they be.

I thoroughly enjoy imagining and inventing possible stories behind this and that. But it’s also cool to get to know the minds behind a creative work. While I don’t know Jordan, he seems like the kind of guy I’d get along with. In our brief emails, he came across as an upbeat, friendly guy. I can’t help but think this played into the whimsical character of the project.

Created as a school project, the reasons behind Jordan’s conceptual and aesthetic decisions were pretty straight forward.

“We had to make an annual report and the company and themes and all that was up to us. My solution came about for a few reasons. First of, I was (and still am) really into vintage design and illustration, so I went in hoping to go in that direction. And I decided to do an airline because there is so much great imagery that can come from there. That year happened to be the 70th anniversary of Air Canada, so I was able to justify the aging and the retro style by celebrating the history of the company. The idea was that someone could pick it up and they would immediately start to think about Air Canada’s place in history.”

“Visually, I got my inspiration by doing a lot of research into old airline ads and travel posters. For example the rainbow plane was inspired by an old El Al ad. The other plane illustrations (the cover/inside cover) obviously are meant to emphasize the historical theme again because one is current, and the other is old. And for those I just wanted to do real sparse and simple illustrations.”

And this is the part that really made me smile:

“Basically, it was an opportunity to try and create the kind of design that I love and spend hours each day looking for, and I don’t find that those kind of opportunities come up all that often, so I went for it.”

I’ve spent a lot of time doing things for that very reason. And you know what? It’s always been worthwhile. That being said, I want to leave a few questions for you to ponder.

First, when was the last time you did something just because you love it? My hope is that, on a consistent basis, you either find or create these opportunities.

Second, if it’s been a while, what’s stopping you?

I’m guilty of making excuses. No question there. But when I find that I’m lacking a sense of love for what I create, it becomes a priority. If I can’t get excited about something, I need to create something that excites me. The times that I follow through with this have always been memorable, and always worthwhile.

Meet Matt.

Hey there. My name is Matt, and I like finding the beauty in things. So much, in fact, that I’ve grown to look for them in any situation I can. This has led to a career in design, a hobby of illustration, and more recently, an offer from Refe.

Refe thought that with all the talk about business around here, it might be a good idea to have a regular series that focuses on art. So, he asked me to share some of these beautiful, inspiring things that get me all excited.

I agreed.

While I’m a visual communicator primarily, inspiration comes from much more than graphic design. Music hugely inspires and informs my process, as do video games (believe it, friend) and film. This means we’ll be exploring a variety of media and content in these posts. As the art and business of music grows ever closer to these (and other) disciplines, my hope is that, together, we can share in an excitement and passion for exploring creativity in many forms.

This whole thing will be a process. Bear with me.

If you’d like to submit a piece of art, video, or design, that you’d like to see discussed here, I’d love to hear about it. Toss an email to msauter [at] gmail [dot] com, or drop me a line on twitter. Hopefully we’ll have so much in the queue that I have to disappoint some of you. But that’s okay, it’s not personal. We can still be friends.

Theremins used to be innovative.

Innovation is important. It elevates a product beyond simple retail and causes it to become a catalyst for change in the marketplace and culture. Innovation is also notoriously elusive. Today’s stroke of genius could be tomorrow’s old news. Worse, that first-to-market concept you’ve been hustling to get out the door could be short-circuited by the company down the street. The brief shelf-life of an innovative product is simply not enough to build a business on.

Music is no different. Breaking a “brand new sound” is not easy to do. Most listeners find anything too far outside the norm to be at best challenging, or at worst offensive to their ear. New sounds usually take time to bleed into the mainstream. The listening public gradually becomes accustomed to them as they buzz around their periphery, like messages quietly played on a loop while they sleep.

Sometimes a band is good enough, and lasts long enough, to cash in on this build-up of auditory equity. More often it’s another act that happens to enter the scene at the just the right time. They may seem to come out of nowhere, but if you look closely you’ll probably find the forerunners whose shoulders these new radio (internet?) darlings are standing on.

Is that a bad thing? Maybe for the pretentious scenesters who know the truth. My band-mates and I always shunned those tipping-point bands that stumbled serendipitously into the breakthrough. They got all the glory, but we knew they were reaping what others had sown.

For everyone else, no. It’s not a bad thing. In fact, it’s a good thing because it’s necessary for the introduction of new music into the mainstream. The mainstream and the underground have a symbiotic relationship. One feeds off the other.

Counting on Innovation to Cut Through the Noise

When a new band forms and gathers for the first time in their drummer’s basement they may talk about how they’ll rise above the sea of new music and make their mark. Inevitably one of the members will suggest that all they have to do is “write something totally new that no one’s ever heard before.” Then people will have to notice them. It’ll probably be the guitarist. And while his speech may be compelling, that band will be making a serious mistake if they take his word for it.

I already laid out the challenges of innovation-as-a-business-model in the paragraphs above. The way I see it, they leave our imaginary example band with two primary options. They can adopt innovation as their ‘signature’ and strive to reinvent the wheel with each new project. Or, they can try to make a big splash with something way out there and ride that wave as far as it will take them. If you take each of these paths you’ll see that neither is a great option.

1. Innovation as a Signature

Do you really think you can put out album after album, song after song and keep breaking the mold? I’m not saying that it hasn’t happened, but I think we can all agree that this is a tall order. Take for example some of the most well known musical innovators of the past decades: Radiohead. Radiohead released Kid A, then gradually drifted back toward their earlier rock focused writing. They haven’t lost what they gained with Kid A, but they haven’t repeated the feat either.

2. Innovation as Conversation Starter

Gaining exposure through the release of something new and out there is a little like getting struck by lightening. You never really know when it’s going to happen, and while there are things that you can do to greatly increase your chances, there still has to be a storm already brewing overhead.

For those who do make waves with something innovative are usually prime candidates for the classic ‘sophomore slump.’ If you can’t get lightening to strike twice you’d better put out something that doesn’t stray too far from the once-revolutionary formula you pioneered the first time or you’ll have some disappointed fans. Not to mention the Pitchforks of the world who live for those moments when promising new bands fall from grace.

And did I mention that just about every new band out there is trying to do the exact same thing?

What Role Should Innovation Play?

I’m not suggesting that innovation is not important to an artist or business. Nothing could be further from the truth. Art in particular is revitalized by innovative works. Innovation is what keeps art forms alive. However, what keeps artists alive is longevity. Longevity is built from many disciplines, innovation being only one of them.  It requires insight into promotion and public relations. A solid business model that creates opportunities for consistent revenue and has room to change with shortening market cycles. A well-defined vision and a plan to see it through.

Most of all what long-lasting success demands is authenticity. The greatest skill an artist can learn is to create in their own voice. When innovation is given a disproportionate focus the most common casualty is authenticity. Some of the greatest songs ever written have been simple and traditional. Even in rock and roll. Write music that you’re passionate about and listeners will get it. You will succeed or fail based on your own merits and your own personality. And best of all, you’ll never run out of material.

Last year guitar virtuoso Joe Satriani filed a lawsuit against Coldplay alleging that ‘Viva La Vida’ contained “substantial, original portions” of a track he put out in 2004 called ‘If I Could Fly.’

Coldplay responded by saying that if the two songs were similar it was purely coincidental. Dozens of video mashups, music theory analyses, and editorials followed. The two songs were revealed to be quite similar indeed – virtually the same melody and chord progression, though in different keys, and with different arrangements and song structure.

The world will likely never know if Chris Martin and Co. did consciously rip off Satriani’s work. The two parties settle out of court last week, and as part of the terms Coldplay will have no obligation to admit wrongdoing.

Members of Coldplay have talked about their philosophy on ‘borrowing’ from other artists’ work in the past, however. “We’re definitely good, but I don’t think you can say we’re that original,” Christ Martin admitted in an interview with Rolling Stone. “I regard us as being incredibly good plagiarists.” In another article guitarist Johnny Buckland notes that the song ‘Fix You’ is a close copy of Elbow’s ‘Grace Under Pressure.’ “We’ve never so directly stolen off anyone before,” he said. “We’ve never paid for our plagiarism.”

For some, that kind of honesty probably comes as a bit of a shock. Especially when the band in question is so high-profile. Shocking that they did it in the first place, and even more shocking that they talked about it. Doesn’t artistic integrity forbid that kind of blatant plagiarism?

Art vs. Law

I was curious to find out what other musicians thought about the practice of using pieces of other peoples’ songs, so I posed the question to a few people on Twitter. Most of the participants in my unscientific survey said that they often borrow a chord progression or groove, but that they rarely, or never lift a melody or lyric. Everyone seemed to agree that subconscious copying was nearly unavoidable.

During the course of the discussion one individual said that while she considered any intentional copying to be unacceptable, she had no problem borrowing from works in the public domain. This turned out to be a common philosophy.

This was a very telling statement! It reveals that artists’ reasons for not copying other artists is not primarily a matter of artistic integrity, but rather a matter of legal integrity. Think about that for a moment – we have no problem absorbing pieces of other people’s creative works into our own, as long as no law prohibits it.

Two possible conclusions could be drawn from this:

1. Most artists lack integrity, because the only thing preventing them from stealing is the law.
2. Building on the works that have come before is a natural part of artistic expression, but the law is artificially restrictive.

So which is it? Is ‘plagarism’ wrong because it goes against the principles of artistic expression, or is it wrong because the law has made it wrong? To put it another way: if copyright law was removed would it still be wrong to copy?

History of Plagiarism

History may have some insight into this philosophical dilemma (as it often does, oddly enough…) First, let’s go way back to the Homeric epics The Iliad and The Odyssey. Who wrote those tales? Homer, obviously. Yet, most modern scholars believe that Homer was not a literal individual, but rather the sum of centuries of oral tradition that produced these two great works. In other words, two of the world’s most beloved pieces of literature were created through a process of iterative plagiarism that lasted hundreds of years.

Pablo Picasso – a decent authority on art – is also famously quoted as saying, “Good artists borrow, great artists steal.” Poet T.S. Elliot later altered the phrase a bit for his own purposes, but we’ll get to that in a minute.

The practice of one artist ‘borrowing’ from another is clearly not new. It also appears that at least a few notable creative figures were ok with it.

Creating in the Void

When I was younger and just beginning to devote time to writing music seriously, I used to think that in order to write something original I had to sequester myself in my room until the song I was working on was finished. I refused to listen to music, watch movies, read books – I was determined to create a sterile environment in which my masterpiece could remain pure.

And you know what? Every song I wrote still managed to sound just like Pedro the Lion – my favorite band at the time. You can’t escape outside influences. And why would you want to? When did sterility ever produce anything?

Every artist borrows both consciously and subconsciously from the artists that came before them. We take what someone else created and we add, subtract and manipulate it until it is transformed into something greater than the sum of its parts. That’s not a bad thing. It’s essential to the progress of artistic expression!

Transformative Works

Which brings us back to T.S. Elliot. When the poet Elliot quoted Picasso it was in the context of a review he was writing about playwright Philip Massinger. Massinger apparently had the tendency to borrow a bit too freely from one of his contemporaries – William Shakespeare. Here’s what Elliot wrote:

One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion.

The key to the legitimate reuse of creative works is not in what you take or how much, but in the end result. The end justifies the means, in this case. The law calls this end result a ‘transformative work.’

If you can take something that someone else has created and through your own creativity make it better, or give it new meaning, or a new kind of beauty or value, then what reason could there possibly be not to do it? Fear of a smeared reputation? Fear of legal action? If what you create is truly transformative that shouldn’t be an issue.

The bottom line is that art is collaborative. The artists who embrace this fact and treat it as a powerful resource create great art.

What do you think? Do you agree or am I way off base? Looking forward to your comments. Those who don’t probably end up sounding a whole lot like their favorite band anyway.

During the reign of the CD there seemed to be no need to innovate. For decades that one product brought in plenty of revenue to keep the industry rich. If it’s not broken why fix it?

Meanwhile, we understand now that new technologies were quietly transforming the markets. At some point the right time to succeed the CD with an innovative new product (or series of products) came and went. By the time Napster was established on the scene it was probably too late. An important opportunity was missed because the industry leaders failed to remember that no format lives forever.

On January 9th 2001, Apple – a technology company, appropriately – stepped up to the plate with iTunes. The single track download format quickly began to undercut the CD as iPod sales exploded. By August of this year iTunes had captured 69% of the digital music market and an impressive 25% of all music sold.

Yet despite iTunes’ success, the revenue brought in by music and other content downloads is only a small piece of the pie. The bulk of Apple’s profits come not from music, but from the device they created to play it – the iPod.

In his recent music business report for the Forrester Group, researcher Mark Mulligan rightly asserts that “content scarcity is dead.” And while there were many aspects of that report that I found disappointing, Mulligan’s perspective on product innovation makes a lot of sense. “Content may be king,” he suggests, “but in the digital age, so is the product.”

As music sales continue to decline it has become increasingly important to find new ways of adding value to the music experience. “The days of the CD or the download being the end of the story are long gone,” Mulligan writes.

The report suggests that the way forward is to create “future music products that blend interactivity, multimedia, multiplatform, convenience, and social to create something totally new.”

There are those who have already begun experimenting in this arena. Trent Reznor developed an iPhone app that helped his fans stay connected to all things NIN. Canadian record label Nettwerk has released ‘Pre-Mixes’ that allow fans to create their own mixes of their artist’s music before its official release. An artist named Moldover actually built a working theremin complete with headphone jack and speaker into the jewel case of his recent CD. Each of these in some way allows fans to engage with the artists’ music on a unique level.

Of course, while I think each of these examples is a good one, none of them really reach Mulligan’s standard of products so innovative that they are “unrecognizable.” A lofty goal, but I suppose it’s ok to take a few baby steps first.

I’m a big fan of innovation – particularly as it relates to music. That’s why I started this site in the first place. So when I hear words like “unrecognizable” and “totally new” I get a little excited. However, I also try to take a practical approach whenever possible. I say that because I think it’s important to point out that for the average band – even the average record label – creating a truly revolutionary new product is pretty unlikely.

A company like Apple spends billions of dollars on research and development before launching a device like the iPod, or a platform like iTunes, or even a not-quite-revolutionary format like the new LP. You and I can’t compete with that. Moldover was able to come up with something creative and execute it well, but it’s really more of a gimmick than an innovative product offering.

But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try.

I think that if an artist focuses on the fan engagement piece the rest will begin to materialize. In other words start with the questions, “How do my fans want to interact with me and my music, and how can I make that happen?”

Maybe they want to be able to catch up with you when you’re in town for an impromptu jam session. Create a mobile app that alerts your fans when you’re in town and let’s you post what cafe or bar your at so that they can stop by. Maybe they want to be able get their hands dirty messing around with your music. Build a website loaded with unmixed tracks that they can remix right on the site or download and hack up later. Give them a place to post them and compete to appear as a b-side on your next EP.

I’m sure that you can come up with better ideas than the first three ideas that happened to pop into my head, but you get the idea. The bottom line is that it’s time to start thinking like entrepreneurs. Take some risks. Come up with new ways of drawing people to your music and drive some revenue in the process. I can assure you that if you don’t, someone else will.

The Fireside Bowl before a show

As a music listener, what is the most important factor that determines whether or not you like a particular song, or album, or artist? The last couple of posts I’ve published have produced quite a few comments that seem to consider innovation to be the litmus test. That doesn’t surprise me at all, and I’d probably give the same answer. But why? Why is innovation so important? Can’t a piece of music be judged by more practical standards like arrangements, instrumentation, recording quality, etc.?

First of all, not every innovation has to be the genre-busting, game-changing capital ‘I’ Innovation of Kid A, Pet Sounds or Sgt. Pepper. If every decade has one defining sound, then every two or three decades have that kind of true Innovation. So, while that is certainly a goal worth striving for, we’d run out of music if we disregarded every track that fell short.

Thankfully, even innovation on a smaller scale can be enough to catch a listener’s attention and create a memorable experience.

I remember all of the pretentious conversations my early band mates and I used to have at shows. We could always find something wrong with the other acts (it was hard being perfect.) Yet despite trying desperately not to be, there were a few times when we were genuinely impressed.

One Thursday night my drummer Mike and I went to the now-defunct Chicago institution the Fireside Bowl [pictured top]. I don’t even remember who we had originally come to see. Appleseed Cast, maybe? It’s irrelevant because second band to perform that night overshadowed everything that came on before or after. Our interest was first piqued during the transition when there only appeared to be two members in the band. A tall, lanky drummer and a blonde woman busy setting up a Hammond B52. Looking around, everyone else seemed to watching the stage, too. “What the hell is this?” somebody said too loudly.

The drummer counted in the first song with his sticks over his head, and the room was hit with a wall of thick, analog sound from the organ. The man and the woman sang together for most of the first song. It sounded as if they had taken music from the NES and added drums and tight pop harmonies. They spent the entire time staring deep into each other’s eyes.

My first thought? This is ridiculous. It was just too different from the moody, guitar driven indie rock I was used to. Yet, by the time they had finished their fourth song Mike and I were completely hooked. Who were these guys and where do we get their CD?

Mates Of State performing

The band was Mates Of State [pictured left], and I did end up buying their CD, My Solo Project. They’ve since gone on to find a decent amount of success. And while Mates of State’s music may not be groundbreaking, I still remember the fun of being challenged by something new. I was even willing to overlook some of the flaws that might have been more glaring if they were just rehashing something that had been done dozens of times before.

There were other bands experimenting with new sounds and styles – Anathallo comes to mind. The Dirty Projectors and The Fiery Furnaces more recently. I’m sure you could all name dozens of better examples (please don’t, unless you just can’t help yourself!) The point is simply that while this kind of smaller-scale innovation happens a lot more often than it’s elusive, better-looking cousin Innovation, it can still have a profound effect on the listener. A visit to the local indie-rock dive is transformed into a memory still fresh several years later.

What about quality? Innovation is great, but what if something is just put together really, really well? Quality is certainly important. Your music can be Beethoven’s 9th, but if you cut a trashy recording nobody’s likely to listen. Again, not everybody has to reinvent the wheel.

Yet, in many ways the world doesn’t seem to care as much about quality as it used to. We live in a society where a video shot on someone’s phone can get hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube. It’s grainy, the sound is terrible but fewer and fewer people seem to mind. This isn’t completely new to the music industry – look at the punk movement. For many the attitude was what was important, who cares what it sounded like?

The bottom line is that you can be successful without innovation, but in order to be great you have to be willing to push the envelope. The average music fan will go to about a dozen shows this year. They’ll probably remember two. Many of those acts will put on a good show, but the ones that will imprint themselves on the minds of their audiences are the ones who have taken the time to explore new possiblities.

What do you think? Do you agree, disagree? What is important to you when searching for new music?

Spend enough time online and you might begin to suspect that some media folks want you to think that the DIY approach will somehow be less work than then a traditional career in music. Strange, given that the term itself implies the opposite. ‘DIY’ does, after all, stand for ‘Do It Yourself.’ More rewarding? Less artistically limiting? More fun? Yes, yes, and probably. But less work? No.

Better does not always equal easier. Creating quality music and running a business are both challenging tasks on their own. Put them together and you’ve got your work cut out for you. The artist/fan relationship is the lynch-pin in today’s music marketplace and that relationship also takes a lot of time and energy to maintain, let alone grow. As much as you might want it to be ‘all about the music’ there are many other responsibilities vying for your attention. One artist who has learned this lesson – and who has experienced its sacrifices and rewards – is Imogen Heap.

An article called The New Music Business Model: Imogen Heap has been getting a lot of attention lately. Any article with a headline like ‘The New Music Business Model’ is likely to get a lot of attention these days, but this one is worth reading. The author, Colette Weintraub of Deep Dive Marketing, describes the sometimes novel ways Heap utilized technology and fan engagement in the making and marketing of her upcoming album Ellipse.

Imogen Heap wasn’t starting at square one when she began promoting Ellipse – she already had a committed fan base thanks to a host of films and TV shows featuring her music. But with Ellipse Heap has expanded her reach exponentially, and has truly done the bulk of the work herself. She refinanced her house to fund recording, she communicates constantly with her fans, even crowd-sourcing song titles and album artwork, etc.

She does SO much, in fact, that it’s hard to see how she has any time left to create music.

I didn’t really think of it that way until I read a recent Lefsetz post about his reaction to the Weintraub article. Here it is:

I uncovered the essay … delineating everything Imogen had done to sell her new album.

And my first reaction was, is it worth it?

Now the activities took two years to unfold.  But suddenly, you’re no longer a musician, but a personality.  And so much of what Imogen was doing was generating no revenue.  It was all leading up to a single sales event, the ultimate release of an album.  Huh?

He goes on:

Do you have to be a newfangled self-marketer to have success in today’s world?  If that’s what it takes, if you’ve got to do everything Imogen did, how many will say no?  What about practicing, gigging, getting good? … Just about everything Imogen has done here has nothing to do with music … There’s got to be a better way to reach fans.

It was refreshing to see a different perspective on the ‘New Music Business Model’ buzz, and it got me thinking about something I had seen from Heap herself a few days before the Lefsetz post. In responding to one of her followers on Twitter, Heap indicated that she was feeling the strain the process was putting on her. The DIY model that she had embraced was leaving precious little time for what she loves most: music. You can read her updates in the screenshots below.

Building a successful career in music on your own terms and with your own two hands is a difficult task, more akin to the life of an entrepreneur than to the iconic lifestyle of a rockstar. You’re the CEO, the content creator and PR coordinator all rolled into one overworked and (usually very) underpaid package. It’s not for everybody. Not everyone is going to enjoy that kind of lifestyle, and let’s not kid ourselves – not everyone is cut out for it.

I appreciate all of the excitement Imogen Heap’s story has been generating recently, and I hope that her new album launches to enormous returns. It’s great to have such a compelling example of DIY success. Those who do choose to go for it would be wise to study her experiences.

That, and after following Imogen for while now on Twitter and in the media I can’t help but root for her. I suppose that means that what she’s been doing for the past two years is working.

Photo by Jeremy Cowart.

It seems redundant by now to say it, but the new music market that artists face today is a lot different than at any time in the past. The way people enjoy music is different, and the way music is purchased is different. I wrote recently about ways artists can respond to these new market realities by applying a bit of creativity to the way they release their music. You can read the entire article here, but the main point is that  artists should not blindly follow the traditional approach of new releases staggered across multi-year gaps. Fan engagement is at a premium, and by releasing less new material more frequently an artist can hold the attention of fans more effectively, longer.

One way to enhance this approach is through a subscription model. When you release a new track each month, or a new EP every six, you want to make it as easy as possible for fans to know about it when new material drops, and to get their hands on it once it does. Since most artists can’t afford to create a fresh marketing blitz every four weeks, why not push a subscriptions? Instead of promoting the new releases themselves (which you will obviously still have to do to a large extent) you promote access to all future releases. Fans pay a flat fee that allows them to receive each new track in their mailbox (whether digitally or physically – or both) as soon as it’s released, for whatever length of time you choose. Convenience for the fan, and a captive audience for you.

There are different ways to go about implementing a subscription service. Artist John Wood, who I wrote about a few days ago, offers his fans a tiered model. Each tier costs a bit more than the one before it and includes additional value – from private live performances to a song written for the fan’s birthday or “unlimited hugs.” Tiered offerings have been getting a lot of attention lately with the success of similar models from Jill Sobule, Amanda Palmer, and Trent Reznor, among many others. The ones that work the best capitalize on fans’ desire to connect with the artist. Personalization and especially actual interaction are big selling points and fans have proven their willingness to pay for it.

A lot of the artists listed above also offered fans the option to subscribe by donating an amount of their choosing. Pay-what-you-want has already proven its worth, so I won’t get into that here. I will say that I understand why many artists are hesitant about this concept. It’s a risk, for sure. But I would challenge you to take the risk and give it a try – I think you’ll be surprised at how generous many fans are willing to be to support the artists they love. Also remember that when a subscriber chooses only to donate the minimum it does not necessarily equal a lost sale. That person likely would not have subscribed in the first place if they had to pay more for it, and now you have one more set of ears exposed to your music.

If you haven’t created a release strategy for yourself or for your band you are making a mistake. You don’t have to use the ideas that I present here – they’re only meant as suggestions. But if you are simply doing the same thing that artists have been doing for decades you’re not going to be able to compete in the new music marketplace. Take a look at your existing fan base and map out your goals. What do you need to do to reach the next level, and how can you adapt the way you release your music to help you get there?

If you have any questions about starting your own subscription service I’d encourage you to take a look at some of the artists I mentioned about and see what has worked for them. You can also feel free use the comments section, or email me and I’d be happy to help you work it out. What do you think? Are any of you readers already doing something like this?

CreativeCommons.org ran a story last week on their blog about an artist named John Wood who is doing something interesting with his music:

“Beginning this past March, John Wood has written, recorded, mixed, and mastered an album a month. Distributed under the moniker Learning Music Monthly, the music arrives on the first of the month as CDs in subscribers’ mailboxes and MP3s in their digital lockers, all released under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike license.”

“Offering a tiered subscription service (amenities include stickers, bonus albums, a song written for you on your birthday, and much more depending on price), Learning Music Monthly is a great case study in figuring out how independent artists and labels (LMM is released through CC-friendly label vosotros) are approaching distribution in today’s current music climate.”

As the Creative Commons folks mention, Wood’s distribution model is subscription based, with subscribers choosing the amount they would like to pay. Everything that has to do with the album has been released under a CC license, including the music, cover art, sheet-music, lyrics and mix-stems.

The subscription model dates back to the days of Motown (probably further) when labels offered subscriptions that let fans receive new singles and records from each of the bands on the label’s roster when as soon as it was released. More recently this model has been getting a lot of attention, with several well-known acts like Beck and Billy Corgan experimenting with this type of distribution.

Subscriptions make particular sense for this project – 12 albums in 12 months would be a lot for even the most die-hard fan to keep track of. Having each new album arrive at the subscriber’s door (or email) as soon as it’s released simplifies things considerably.

photo by cameronparkins

Pay-what-you-want seems to be working out pretty well, too. If  a fan chooses not to pay one of the predetermined tiered prices they are able to simply give a donation of whatever amount they are able/willing to pay. “I’m sure we have a handful of subscribers who wouldn’t have signed up had it not been for the donation option,” Wood acknowledges, “The majority of subscribers have paid by donation, and some of those very generously.” About six months into the year long project, Woods says that he still feels good about the way they’ve chosen to set the project up.

Creative Commons was also the natural choice for Wood:

“CC seems to fit the project well. I feel like this license can inspire new creative opportunities. Also, it just makes sense with the current state of technology. I’d rather people have the music than not; so if someone burns a CD for their friend, that’s great. We’ve gotten a lot of positive nods from people just for being aligned with CC.”

I think Woods is right on in his thinking here. If you want to get your music heard by as many people as possible you need to remove the barriers. Restrictive copyright may (or, more realistically may not) prevent unwanted sharing, but remember that it also prevents the kind of sharing you want from your fans. To take it a step further and release the mix-stems is also a smart move, especially when some of his tracks are actually remixes of tracks originally recorded by other artists.

It will be interesting to see where Learning Music Monthly takes Woods once it runs its course. Regardless of the result, it’s great to see an artist trying something new and attempting to respond to the new possibilities presenting themselves to the music industry today. You can listen to Wood’s work here.

Radiohead manager Brian Message has reportedly teamed up with MAMA Group and Vancouver-based Nettwerk Music Group to launch a new kind of record label, called Polyphonic. Polyphonic will allow artists to retain their copyright, and will give new artists a fifty-percent share of profits. Established artists may earn an even higher percentage, with hints of a kind of sliding scale. The new label is being founded with the intention of coming up with new, innovative digital release strategies for their artists along the lines of the pay-what-you-want download model of Radiohead’s In Rainbows.

Details are still slim, but with what we know so far Polyphonic promises to be a huge departure from the traditional record label business models in both the treatment of artists and openness to innovation.

Allowing artists to hold onto their copyrights is a welcome development, and frankly long over-due. For decades signing a deal with a record label meant the artist had to give up most of the rights to the music they created. Back in the day, artists had few alternatives – the expense of manufacturing and distribution necessitated the support of a label. New technology has leveled the playing field considerably, and this move could signal a new chapter in record label business practices. We can dream, right?

Brian Message is used to going against the grain of the industry. Aside from being a contributor to the pay-what-you-want strategy, he is also out-spoken on the issue of P2P. “We believe file-sharing by peer-to-peer should be legalised,” he is quoted saying. “The sharing of music where it is not for profit is a great thing for culture and music.”

Nettwerk’s Terry McBride is no stranger to innovation himself. In one of many examples, Nettwerk recently released ‘pre-mixes’ of yet unreleased tracks for fans to mix and mash. They chose the best of the best and released them alongside the official versions. Nettwerk is the home of artists like Sarah McLachlan, Great Lake Swimmers, Alexi Murdoch and Ladytron.

There is no information yet regarding who Polyphonic is looking to sign up first, but assuming that they have the rest of their ducks in a row, I would imagine that with a 50/50 split and a hands-off policy toward masters they shouldn’t have to much trouble attracting talent.

I am excited to see how this story develops. In particular, I’d like to hear more details about their model. Digital distribution means significantly reduced costs, but in a market where even the greed of the majors has hardly kept them afloat it will be interesting to see how they plan to offset the generous package they are offering artists. Smaller independent labels have had similar policies for years, but to see it work on a large scale would be impressive.