I could be wrong, but It sounds like maybe you either misunderstood what I was saying about today's music, or that maybe I didn't word it correctly – but regardless, let me see if I can first clear a few things up here:

First, I've been a recording engineer for 3 semi-major labels over the past 22 years now – and before that, was an active member (musician) for a previous full-time band (that was under full contract & tours) with 2 records appearing on the charts myself – this is NOT to gloat by any means (I hate that by the way:) – but only to let you know that 'music' is all that I've ever known for most of my life now, and I'm still both around it and highly active with music making, nearly every, single day of my life.

(I've also spent a lifetime being an avid record/music 'collector' as well, so I do keep up with the times, and like many others – have definitely seen a 'change' in music over these last several years.)

(so please understand, when you say, “it makes one question how well tuned in you are to people making music currently.” – not only do I hear it everyday, but I'm one of the ones who helps 'make & produce it' everyday as well.) Again, this is in NO means to 'brag' or anything of that silly nature – but just to let you know a bit of my background, and why I'm even on this thread in the first place – because I'm simply 'confused' and questioning some of these tactics that I'm always hearing – plus, I simply believe that a lot of 'originality' has been lost in the actual 'writing' & 'recording' processes of today – and simply hope to see a lot of that same 'originality' return, and for the benefit of ALL of us – that's all.

(trust me, if anything – I'm fighting for the musicians here – certainly not the 'industry' itself, or personal 'snobbery' – that's for the birds my friend

I'm very sorry if you think I was trying to say that absolutely NO good music whatsoever has been put out in the last 8-10 years. Obviously, 'yes' – some good music has in fact been made and found it's way thru. But my main point was (and maybe it just wasn't presented the best way) – but I was just saying that in COMPARISON to previous decades – this particular last decade, mainly in the 'commercial' department – has really found itself 'stuck' for the most part.

For example, as a recording engineer – you'd probably be VERY surprised to see how many musicians come in (almost on a daily basis now it seems) & record material that sounds 'exactly' like the same material that we all get bombarded with, everyday, on the radio, MTV, car commercials, the front-page of itunes, etc, etc.

(I'm pretty sure you have to know of the music I speak of here?

When in fact – if these same bands do have any material to offer that truly sounds 'original' or 'different' – it then seems 9 times out of 10, that they refuse or 'shy away' from recording or releasing that particular material – due to the fact that they think it will only hurt their chances of 'making it big.' (when in fact, it just makes them 'blend-in' more with all of these other musical 'lemmings' out there, who have already recorded that 'same song & dance', a million times over.

(do you see what I mean now? or is that a better way to put it?)

Another good example that comes to mind – is the current trend of 'American Idol' (God help us all….) Since this show first aired and has become somewhat of a 'staple' in the music industry now – a lot of artists & musicians now seem to be extremely 'afraid' to stray from things like 'originality', 'experimentation', 'creativity', etc – because they think it will damage their chances in becoming a 'star' (success) so in return, they have a huge tendency to both write & record 'straight-down-the-middle', mainstream type songs – and also seem to forget why they even 'really' wanted to do this in the first place, if you know what I mean?

I mean, most of them (if not nearly 'all' of them, start out by coming in the studio and saying, “I want to do MY music and show the whole world what makes ME stand out from the others….”

But once I hit 'record' and the tape starts to roll, – a lot of that 'originality' goes straight out the window it seems. And instead, they become more 'obedient' all of the sudden, and start to focus on that 'all mighty dollar' and mainstream 'success' – and again, 'shy away' from what could have been something 'magical' and 'different' to offer to the listeners. It's extremely 'sad' to say the least. And again, I see this happening nearly everyday it seems, and at just about every studio that calls me in to record a session now.

So the point I was originally trying to make, was that in COMPARISON to a lot of the previous decades in music – it really seemed that most musicians & songwriters back then were trying to constantly come up with something completely 'different' to offer up, and were VERY much willing to fight for it if need be – and if that also meant losing a contract or not getting their album put out right away – then they would either cancel the contract, or look elsewhere in order to retain their integrity.

I realize this may be difficult for you (or a lot of others out there to believe or comprehend) – but you would probably be VERY surprised on just how many bands, artists, etc – are 'quick' to ignore integrity now, forget 'originality', and just focus on the material that will give them their best chances for 'success' in today's music.

Well, if that's ALL you (meaning today's songwriter or artist) wants to achieve – then so be it. But how this actually 'hurts' the music scene of today – is that it helps prevent a lot of really 'good' artists or truly 'creative' bands from ever being noticed, because their music doesn't follow this 'pattern' and their chances of 'success' are quite grim, to say the least. This 'pattern' needs to be broken so that we can level the playing field and hopefully get back to the older, 'anything goes' type of musical creativity. (this is also what I was trying to say by 'it's a shame that even though we have all of today's technology, yet we're not really 'doing' as much as we could do with it and benefitting from it – if that makes better sense?)

– and also keep in mind here – that I'm mostly just referring to 'up & coming' acts (or 'local bands' as some may put it) – NOT bands that are currently 'on top' of the charts – or that have been successful for several years or decades now. This is why I was trying to refer to the 'current' music acts or 'music of the future'.

The other point I was trying to make (in regards to 'originality' in today's music being compared to the music of 'previous' decades, such as the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, etc) – was that 'most' artists back then (especially compared to now) – were trying to come up with material that really 'stood-out' a bit more, or that had something completely 'different' to offer – NOT to go 'back in time' and reproduce music that we've already heard a thousand times. (example: Green Day tried to go back and imitate 'early punk' mixed with pop – now we have hundreds of bands every month on the radio, trying to do the EXACT same thing, and with the EXACT same sound – where's the 'originality' in that?) Where as, the further in time you go back – most rock bands were in desperate searches to find their own 'distinctive' sound, that would NOT sound like ANYONE else's – but that could still be 'successful' – make sense?

This is mostly what I was referring to about the bands of the last 8-10 years now.

Have their been some 'great acts' that have come out in the past 8-10 years now? – of course. – but not nearly as many as we used to see, that's all.

One word that comes to mind that seems to be plaguing a lot of music nowadays, is the hideous 'Retro' word.

I can't even begin to tell you how many bands I record now, will come in the studio, and when first asked, “so what does your band have to offer?” – or – “so how would you describe your sound?” – they so often reply, “well, it's a 'retro-thing” -or – “we're basically trying to 'bring-back' a such & such 'retro-sound'”………

(does this sound familiar to you?) And that's just 'one' current 'fad' of many.

But I can tell you that the most 'successful' bands or artists that I've personally recorded or that one of the labels has put out and they've gone on to become 'successful – are the ones who are extremely 'original', who aren't afraid to bend or break the 'rules', who try to avoid ANY or ALL 'current fads' – and who STRONGLY believe in what they do. (not to mention, they usually could care less about American Idol standards as well

So hopefully 'now', you can see what I was referring to about 'originality' needing to play such an important part of today's music or the future of music, as well as music being 'new' or 'fresh'. It's not meant to be an insult of any kind – but just an observation, and an opinion from someone who works largely and closely around the 'business' (even though I hate that word:) on a day-to-day basis.

Let me throw this one at you just for kicks: compare today's, let's say………'acoustic-guitar-songwriters' – to a lot of the earlier decades 'acoustic-guitar-songwriters'.

(since this has become such a 'high-trend' now that you see & hear nearly every week on endless radio-stations, MTV, VH-1, etc…..)

Back in the earlier decades, it was a LOT more difficult to find multiple 'acoustic-songwriters' who sounded nearly the exact same. 'Dylan', sounded like Dylan. James Taylor sounded like Taylor, Paul Simon, Joan Beaz, Neil Young, CS&N, Tom Petty, Ani DeFranco, Tracy Chapman, etc, etc, etc……….

Now skip to the more recent last 8-10 years:

I'm sure you could name a 'few', (especially within the 'underground' scene) – but since I'm under the impression that this thread's topic is about 'Success' (more mainstream) it's a LOT more difficult to name these same type of artists who sound as 'original' now, and who hardly sound like anyone else on the scene. I mean, are you honestly trying to say that Taylor Swift for example, sounds 'nothing' like anyone else in that field? You can almost bet that nearly any week of the year – someone else will come along with a VERY similar 'look' and 'sound' – because that's what has become to be 'expected' now. And because it's 'expected' – this in turn causes the 'better', more likely to be 'original' artists out there to be 'buried' and never noticed. And it's NOT really because these unsung heroes are in fact, 'original' and 'fresh' – but because all of these unoriginal, 'clone-artists' out there, 'clog' the internet systems so rapidly, and kind of 'get pushed' to the forefront – why? – because it's 'safe', expected, and probably stands the better chances of selling to the masses.

This kinda goes back to the American Idol 'theory' – the bar has been set to this polished 'standard' now – and people have a tendency now to 'play things safe', and not stray away from the 'formula'. (and again, this is just 'one' example or 'style' of music) – you can easily see the exact same 'trends' in nearly ALL other styles or genres of popular music today, wether it be rap, rock, country, – whatever.

So again, – this is what I was referring to when I made that comment. It's also not to say that some form of 'commercialism' has not always been around since the beginning of time – but it just seems WAY more apparent in today's music than ever before – especially compared to the music of previous decades, that's all.

The other point I was trying to make about today's 'innovations' in 'technologies' not being used to it's upmost, was this: you would think that with all of this 'new' technology today that's available for just about ANY artist or musician to use for themselves – you would see a LOT more of that 'originality' & experimentation being used. And again, you do see 'some' from time to time – but in the grand scheme of things when you really think about it – you don't see quite nearly as much as we should be seeing. It should be a lot more apparent in today's 'commercial' music (and again, I'm only using the word 'commercial' because I was under the impression that this particular thread is mainly addressing 'success' – and most people that want to truly 'succeed' in music nowadays – often associate 'success' with the 'big time' – not the 'underground' world, where 'commercial music' is normally frowned upon.)

So I'm sorry Justin, if I mislead you or gave you the wrong impression – I was just simply trying to make a small point, nothing else.

But with being in the music business for so many years now, I've seen a lot of things both come & go. What I try to focus on and remind my clients & artists of: is to just keep it simple, remember the basics (or the 'tried & true' as they say) – be 'original', try to be more 'creative' than the last guy, don't be afraid to try new things, and make music that you 'truly' believe in – (not whatever 'fad' or trend is currently going on.)

Nobody has the 'perfect' answers – but I do know that with these things, you can never go wrong with at least.

The only reason I even questioned or commented on this particular post – was for the same reasons you posted – “be more specific.” I'm sure Dave & Mr. Spohn are really nice guys at heart, and have good intentions as well. But I would just like to hear a lot 'more' details, instead of obvious comments such as 'be brilliant', 'have a strategy', or 'be useful'.

(I honestly thought that these were a 'given', and nearly 'any' musician or artist already had 'some' form of that to begin with, no matter who they are.)

I'm not 'accusing' anyone of 'anything'.

Personally, I don't think there is any 'quick fixes' as you put it (nor should there be.) But if 'anyone' out there is going to come forward & give advice on 'strategy tactics' or anything of that particular nature – it needs to be FAR more 'direct' & detailed, plus, nobody ever needs to get put down for raising their hand and asking more questions of any sort.

As lengthy as this thread has been so far, and with all due respect, I STILL haven't really heard any direct 'specifics' or detailed maps of what exactly to do. Even with the aforementioned 'concept of usefulness' – I'm still purely interested in hearing 'exactly' how that might be played out for someone – not just another catch phrase that 'sounds cool'.

But I still have to stick to my original stance on where ANY band or artist should start or build their foundation upon:

– they still have to sound good and show talent to begin with – or nothing else really matters after that. As cliche as that may sound, I've had FAR, far too many bands or artists come into the studio who can barely write a song, barely play an instrument – but their haircuts & eyeliner all look DAMN great and they're already to make a video and launch a website.

(sorry, not going to cut it.)

– but if they can write & play well – they still need to be very dedicated (especially if they plan on making a 'full' living out of it) – and again, 'be original' – bring something 'new' to the table.

So many bands or artists 'forget' this or don't even seem to care about these qualities – but they don't seem to realize that by 'having' these qualities – this in fact will 'help' their chances of 'standing out' – FAR more than just writing trendy songs of the bare minimum, and relying 'more' on 'tactics', site-hits, & 'web-strategies'.

– and 'this' has been my main 'stance' all along.

It may not be the 'answer to all' – but it's a damn good start, and again, you'd be pretty surprised as to how many artists nowadays completely forget these things – and seek 'success', far elsewhere.

Morris:
(1) compared to most other “music marketing strategists”, Fight does not seem to be in the business of annoying sell-sell-sell self promotion. If anything, Dave tends to be more disparaging to musicians than unrealistically supportive in his comments. Of course, I have never worked or met with these folks, so I don't know what kind of business they run. But the conversations that unfold here in the public domain tend to be more big-picture oriented, and don't purport to offer quick fixes, which is what you seem to be accusing Dave of.

(2) You wrote: “'really', – look at just this last 8-10 years now in music (especially these last 6-7 years) – it's painfully difficult to hear hardly ANYTHING completely 'new' or 'fresh'”

Thats ridiculous. This was the most diverse and unique decade in music, possibly ever. What you may be referring to is the fact that mainstream music sources were unable to promote it on radio and TV, because there was too much diversity, and no longer a monoculture of music that we all could agree upon. But to say that there was no innovation or good use of technology really makes one question how well tuned in you are to people making music currently.

J. Spohn:

That said, Justin, it looks to me like you don't quite see the legitimate point behind Morris' (as well as my) concern, which is that you seem to be espousing no guiding principles of what makes for a good digital strategy.

Being sure that “your product is fundamentally sound” is nothing new. That was as true in 1950 as it is today, and has nothing to do with the changed state of the music industry. “You are now your own brand manager” is nothing new either. Try telling the Beatles, Kiss, or Michael Jackson about how brand management as a responsibility of the artist is a “new” concept.

What it boils down to is this; Dave seems to be saying “here are a bunch of concepts that bands totally don't understand about the internet and need to get on board with.”

The rest of us are saying, “Uh, yeah, we're already doing this stuff. And why are you talking about it as if it is some unique undiscovered country of music marketing?”

Again, I think Dave managed to get at a genuinely interesting/new idea with the concept of usefulness in a band (as opposed to simple entertainment/art). Whether the conversation can be sustained on topics like that, which are actually representative of what you are talking about (as opposed to 'be your own brand!') will go towards showing how well-thought out these New Ideas really are.

I could be wrong, but It sounds like maybe you either misunderstood what I was saying about today's music, or that maybe I didn't word it correctly – but regardless, let me see if I can first clear a few things up here:

First, I've been a recording engineer for 3 semi-major labels over the past 22 years now – and before that, was an active member (musician) for a previous full-time band (that was under full contract & tours) with 2 records appearing on the charts myself – this is NOT to gloat by any means (I hate that by the way:) – but only to let you know that 'music' is all that I've ever known for most of my life now, and I'm still both around it and highly active with music making, nearly every, single day of my life.

(I've also spent a lifetime being an avid record/music 'collector' as well, so I do keep up with the times, and like many others – have definitely seen a 'change' in music over these last several years.)

(so please understand, when you say, “it makes one question how well tuned in you are to people making music currently.” – not only do I hear it everyday, but I'm one of the ones who helps 'make & produce it' everyday as well.) Again, this is in NO means to 'brag' or anything of that silly nature – but just to let you know a bit of my background, and why I'm even on this thread in the first place – because I'm simply 'confused' and questioning some of these tactics that I'm always hearing – plus, I simply believe that a lot of 'originality' has been lost in the actual 'writing' & 'recording' processes of today – and simply hope to see a lot of that same 'originality' return, and for the benefit of ALL of us – that's all.

(trust me, if anything – I'm fighting for the musicians here – certainly not the 'industry' itself, or personal 'snobbery' – that's for the birds my friend

I'm very sorry if you think I was trying to say that absolutely NO good music whatsoever has been put out in the last 8-10 years. Obviously, 'yes' – some good music has in fact been made and found it's way thru. But my main point was (and maybe it just wasn't presented the best way) – but I was just saying that in COMPARISON to previous decades – this particular last decade, mainly in the 'commercial' department – has really found itself 'stuck' for the most part.

For example, as a recording engineer – you'd probably be VERY surprised to see how many musicians come in (almost on a daily basis now it seems) & record material that sounds 'exactly' like the same material that we all get bombarded with, everyday, on the radio, MTV, car commercials, the front-page of itunes, etc, etc.

(I'm pretty sure you have to know of the music I speak of here?

When in fact – if these same bands do have any material to offer that truly sounds 'original' or 'different' – it then seems 9 times out of 10, that they refuse or 'shy away' from recording or releasing that particular material – due to the fact that they think it will only hurt their chances of 'making it big.' (when in fact, it just makes them 'blend-in' more with all of these other musical 'lemmings' out there, who have already recorded that 'same song & dance', a million times over.

(do you see what I mean now? or is that a better way to put it?)

Another good example that comes to mind – is the current trend of 'American Idol' (God help us all….) Since this show first aired and has become somewhat of a 'staple' in the music industry now – a lot of artists & musicians now seem to be extremely 'afraid' to stray from things like 'originality', 'experimentation', 'creativity', etc – because they think it will damage their chances in becoming a 'star' (success) so in return, they have a huge tendency to both write & record 'straight-down-the-middle', mainstream type songs – and also seem to forget why they even 'really' wanted to do this in the first place, if you know what I mean?

I mean, most of them (if not nearly 'all' of them, start out by coming in the studio and saying, “I want to do MY music and show the whole world what makes ME stand out from the others….”

But once I hit 'record' and the tape starts to roll, – a lot of that 'originality' goes straight out the window it seems. And instead, they become more 'obedient' all of the sudden, and start to focus on that 'all mighty dollar' and mainstream 'success' – and again, 'shy away' from what could have been something 'magical' and 'different' to offer to the listeners. It's extremely 'sad' to say the least. And again, I see this happening nearly everyday it seems, and at just about every studio that calls me in to record a session now.

So the point I was originally trying to make, was that in COMPARISON to a lot of the previous decades in music – it really seemed that most musicians & songwriters back then were trying to constantly come up with something completely 'different' to offer up, and were VERY much willing to fight for it if need be – and if that also meant losing a contract or not getting their album put out right away – then they would either cancel the contract, or look elsewhere in order to retain their integrity.

I realize this may be difficult for you (or a lot of others out there to believe or comprehend) – but you would probably be VERY surprised on just how many bands, artists, etc – are 'quick' to ignore integrity now, forget 'originality', and just focus on the material that will give them their best chances for 'success' in today's music.

Well, if that's ALL you (meaning today's songwriter or artist) wants to achieve – then so be it. But how this actually 'hurts' the music scene of today – is that it helps prevent a lot of really 'good' artists or truly 'creative' bands from ever being noticed, because their music doesn't follow this 'pattern' and their chances of 'success' are quite grim, to say the least. This 'pattern' needs to be broken so that we can level the playing field and hopefully get back to the older, 'anything goes' type of musical creativity. (this is also what I was trying to say by 'it's a shame that even though we have all of today's technology, yet we're not really 'doing' as much as we could do with it and benefitting from it – if that makes better sense?)

– and also keep in mind here – that I'm mostly just referring to 'up & coming' acts (or 'local bands' as some may put it) – NOT bands that are currently 'on top' of the charts – or that have been successful for several years or decades now. This is why I was trying to refer to the 'current' music acts or 'music of the future'.

The other point I was trying to make (in regards to 'originality' in today's music being compared to the music of 'previous' decades, such as the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, etc) – was that 'most' artists back then (especially compared to now) – were trying to come up with material that really 'stood-out' a bit more, or that had something completely 'different' to offer – NOT to go 'back in time' and reproduce music that we've already heard a thousand times. (example: Green Day tried to go back and imitate 'early punk' mixed with pop – now we have hundreds of bands every month on the radio, trying to do the EXACT same thing, and with the EXACT same sound – where's the 'originality' in that?) Where as, the further in time you go back – most rock bands were in desperate searches to find their own 'distinctive' sound, that would NOT sound like ANYONE else's – but that could still be 'successful' – make sense?

This is mostly what I was referring to about the bands of the last 8-10 years now.

Have their been some 'great acts' that have come out in the past 8-10 years now? – of course. – but not nearly as many as we used to see, that's all.

One word that comes to mind that seems to be plaguing a lot of music nowadays, is the hideous 'Retro' word.

I can't even begin to tell you how many bands I record now, will come in the studio, and when first asked, “so what does your band have to offer?” – or – “so how would you describe your sound?” – they so often reply, “well, it's a 'retro-thing” -or – “we're basically trying to 'bring-back' a such & such 'retro-sound'”………

(does this sound familiar to you?) And that's just 'one' current 'fad' of many.

But I can tell you that the most 'successful' bands or artists that I've personally recorded or that one of the labels has put out and they've gone on to become 'successful – are the ones who are extremely 'original', who aren't afraid to bend or break the 'rules', who try to avoid ANY or ALL 'current fads' – and who STRONGLY believe in what they do. (not to mention, they usually could care less about American Idol standards as well

So hopefully 'now', you can see what I was referring to about 'originality' needing to play such an important part of today's music or the future of music, as well as music being 'new' or 'fresh'. It's not meant to be an insult of any kind – but just an observation, and an opinion from someone who works largely and closely around the 'business' (even though I hate that word:) on a day-to-day basis.

Let me throw this one at you just for kicks: compare today's, let's say………'acoustic-guitar-songwriters' – to a lot of the earlier decades 'acoustic-guitar-songwriters'.

(since this has become such a 'high-trend' now that you see & hear nearly every week on endless radio-stations, MTV, VH-1, etc…..)

Back in the earlier decades, it was a LOT more difficult to find multiple 'acoustic-songwriters' who sounded nearly the exact same. 'Dylan', sounded like Dylan. James Taylor sounded like Taylor, Paul Simon, Joan Beaz, Neil Young, CS&N, Tom Petty, Ani DeFranco, Tracy Chapman, etc, etc, etc……….

Now skip to the more recent last 8-10 years:

I'm sure you could name a 'few', (especially within the 'underground' scene) – but since I'm under the impression that this thread's topic is about 'Success' (more mainstream) it's a LOT more difficult to name these same type of artists who sound as 'original' now, and who hardly sound like anyone else on the scene. I mean, are you honestly trying to say that Taylor Swift for example, sounds 'nothing' like anyone else in that field? You can almost bet that nearly any week of the year – someone else will come along with a VERY similar 'look' and 'sound' – because that's what has become to be 'expected' now. And because it's 'expected' – this in turn causes the 'better', more likely to be 'original' artists out there to be 'buried' and never noticed. And it's NOT really because these unsung heroes are in fact, 'original' and 'fresh' – but because all of these unoriginal, 'clone-artists' out there, 'clog' the internet systems so rapidly, and kind of 'get pushed' to the forefront – why? – because it's 'safe', expected, and probably stands the better chances of selling to the masses.

This kinda goes back to the American Idol 'theory' – the bar has been set to this polished 'standard' now – and people have a tendency now to 'play things safe', and not stray away from the 'formula'. (and again, this is just 'one' example or 'style' of music) – you can easily see the exact same 'trends' in nearly ALL other styles or genres of popular music today, wether it be rap, rock, country, – whatever.

So again, – this is what I was referring to when I made that comment. It's also not to say that some form of 'commercialism' has not always been around since the beginning of time – but it just seems WAY more apparent in today's music than ever before – especially compared to the music of previous decades, that's all.

The other point I was trying to make about today's 'innovations' in 'technologies' not being used to it's upmost, was this: you would think that with all of this 'new' technology today that's available for just about ANY artist or musician to use for themselves – you would see a LOT more of that 'originality' & experimentation being used. And again, you do see 'some' from time to time – but in the grand scheme of things when you really think about it – you don't see quite nearly as much as we should be seeing. It should be a lot more apparent in today's 'commercial' music (and again, I'm only using the word 'commercial' because I was under the impression that this particular thread is mainly addressing 'success' – and most people that want to truly 'succeed' in music nowadays – often associate 'success' with the 'big time' – not the 'underground' world, where 'commercial music' is normally frowned upon.)

So I'm sorry Justin, if I mislead you or gave you the wrong impression – I was just simply trying to make a small point, nothing else.

But with being in the music business for so many years now, I've seen a lot of things both come & go. What I try to focus on and remind my clients & artists of: is to just keep it simple, remember the basics (or the 'tried & true' as they say) – be 'original', try to be more 'creative' than the last guy, don't be afraid to try new things, and make music that you 'truly' believe in – (not whatever 'fad' or trend is currently going on.)

Nobody has the 'perfect' answers – but I do know that with these things, you can never go wrong with at least.

The only reason I even questioned or commented on this particular post – was for the same reasons you posted – “be more specific.” I'm sure Dave & Mr. Spohn are really nice guys at heart, and have good intentions as well. But I would just like to hear a lot 'more' details, instead of obvious comments such as 'be brilliant', 'have a strategy', or 'be useful'.

(I honestly thought that these were a 'given', and nearly 'any' musician or artist already had 'some' form of that to begin with, no matter who they are.)

I'm not 'accusing' anyone of 'anything'.

Personally, I don't think there is any 'quick fixes' as you put it (nor should there be.) But if 'anyone' out there is going to come forward & give advice on 'strategy tactics' or anything of that particular nature – it needs to be FAR more 'direct' & detailed, plus, nobody ever needs to get put down for raising their hand and asking more questions of any sort.

As lengthy as this thread has been so far, and with all due respect, I STILL haven't really heard any direct 'specifics' or detailed maps of what exactly to do. Even with the aforementioned 'concept of usefulness' – I'm still purely interested in hearing 'exactly' how that might be played out for someone – not just another catch phrase that 'sounds cool'.

But I still have to stick to my original stance on where ANY band or artist should start or build their foundation upon:

– they still have to sound good and show talent to begin with – or nothing else really matters after that. As cliche as that may sound, I've had FAR, far too many bands or artists come into the studio who can barely write a song, barely play an instrument – but their haircuts & eyeliner all look DAMN great and they're already to make a video and launch a website.

(sorry, not going to cut it.)

– but if they can write & play well – they still need to be very dedicated (especially if they plan on making a 'full' living out of it) – and again, 'be original' – bring something 'new' to the table.

So many bands or artists 'forget' this or don't even seem to care about these qualities – but they don't seem to realize that by 'having' these qualities – this in fact will 'help' their chances of 'standing out' – FAR more than just writing trendy songs of the bare minimum, and relying 'more' on 'tactics', site-hits, & 'web-strategies'.

– and 'this' has been my main 'stance' all along.

It may not be the 'answer to all' – but it's a damn good start, and again, you'd be pretty surprised as to how many artists nowadays completely forget these things – and seek 'success', far elsewhere.

Morris:
(1) compared to most other “music marketing strategists”, Fight does not seem to be in the business of annoying sell-sell-sell self promotion. If anything, Dave tends to be more disparaging to musicians than unrealistically supportive in his comments. Of course, I have never worked or met with these folks, so I don't know what kind of business they run. But the conversations that unfold here in the public domain tend to be more big-picture oriented, and don't purport to offer quick fixes, which is what you seem to be accusing Dave of.

(2) You wrote: “'really', – look at just this last 8-10 years now in music (especially these last 6-7 years) – it's painfully difficult to hear hardly ANYTHING completely 'new' or 'fresh'”

Thats ridiculous. This was the most diverse and unique decade in music, possibly ever. What you may be referring to is the fact that mainstream music sources were unable to promote it on radio and TV, because there was too much diversity, and no longer a monoculture of music that we all could agree upon. But to say that there was no innovation or good use of technology really makes one question how well tuned in you are to people making music currently.

J. Spohn:

That said, Justin, it looks to me like you don't quite see the legitimate point behind Morris' (as well as my) concern, which is that you seem to be espousing no guiding principles of what makes for a good digital strategy.

Being sure that “your product is fundamentally sound” is nothing new. That was as true in 1950 as it is today, and has nothing to do with the changed state of the music industry. “You are now your own brand manager” is nothing new either. Try telling the Beatles, Kiss, or Michael Jackson about how brand management as a responsibility of the artist is a “new” concept.

What it boils down to is this; Dave seems to be saying “here are a bunch of concepts that bands totally don't understand about the internet and need to get on board with.”

The rest of us are saying, “Uh, yeah, we're already doing this stuff. And why are you talking about it as if it is some unique undiscovered country of music marketing?”

Again, I think Dave managed to get at a genuinely interesting/new idea with the concept of usefulness in a band (as opposed to simple entertainment/art). Whether the conversation can be sustained on topics like that, which are actually representative of what you are talking about (as opposed to 'be your own brand!') will go towards showing how well-thought out these New Ideas really are.

First of all, I think all of your concerns are valid, and this has really been a great conversation to watch develop.

Second, I'm going to start out by saying that I don't know 1/10 of what you and Dave do when it comes to creating music. That said, I'd like to think I know something about how help brands of any kind be more successful.

Anyway – The first thing I think it's important to note is that at Fight, we almost never have blanket recommendations for anything when it comes to tactical recommendations, and I fear that may be part of the frustration I'm hearing.

When it comes to concrete ideas about tactics you yourself should be implementing, I'd have to know on the level I know my clients. I'd need to know what you do, what success means for you, what your competition looks like and so on.

That said, I was thinking maybe I could add some new thoughts that might help you out.

The first this: One thing I think is critical for any brand to understand is this: the internet is not inherently good for brand. Often it's actually hurtful. There was this notion 10 or 15 years ago that the web would make everything easier. It makes everything hundreds of times harder. As I'm sure you've seen, while the web gives everyone a global reach, and instant distribution channels, it also creates an asymmetrical competitive landscape where individuals can compete on the same level as companies, while playing by very different rules than those companies do. For example, if you're a musician looking to make a career of this, you're not just competing for attention with other musicians of the same ilk, you're competing with every single bozo with a laptop. Sure, they're all terrible, but there are hundreds of thousands of them at any given time and not one of them has to worry about the effect any of their actions have on their career, as you do, they're just busy stealing ears from you.

So, this may be a given to you, but when Dave is talking about need for “brilliance” what he's trying to convey is the idea that for many musicians, the web is viewed as new distribution channel. When you view it this way, it becomes simply a replacement for the CD. In fact though, it has fundamentally changed the notion of what it means to be a working musician. Formerly, just the complexities of the production and distribution of of music limited competition. All thats gone. What we're left with is competitive landscape that has a couple mega-brands and basically 500,000 people all fighting for second place.

Now again, I don't know very much at all about the music industry, but, if a client came to me with a situation like that I'd be looking at a few things:

1) is your product fundamentally sound. In this case obviously your music. If you're thinking you make a career out of this, you need to have something fundamentally better than an amateur. So lets say you.

Then 2) Distribution is no longer enough, it's a commodity. So how are you going to get your product, or your brand to stand out in this sea of everyone. This is where Dave's point comes to play. Yes, you need to be a great musician, but that's table stakes now. The fact of the matter is this: you now are also your brand manager. Or if you're not, you need to have someone who is because how position and differentiate yourself is whats going to make or break you.

Now is where I'm really going to embarrass myself, but stick with me: This is the point Dave is making with Fever Ray. Yes, the music is the music, but again, thats just the cost of entry. She has taken that core, and built around it something akin to a performance art experience. And it's an experience that is 100% consistent, whether it's a show, or an award acceptance speech.

So again, while I can't say “do ______”, I will say

1) First understand what success means for you, because thats going to answer a lot of questions right away. Do you want to make a living doing this? Do you want to get rich? Are you fine having a day job and doing this on the side? Each of those has different strategic and tactical implications.

2) Assuming that you're looking for more than playing a local coffee shop once a month, accept that you are a brand, and you run a business. It's sorta hash that this is true in the arts community, but trust me, it's true. And with that, you need brand management. This doesn't mean you need to go hire some sneaky consultant, but it does mean you need to consider it. When someone buys into your brand, what are they buying? What is the meaning of your brand? When someone puts on a shirt your name on it, what does that signify? Knowing what you want your brand to be is going to take a long way to knowing what you need to do tactically. Are you a freaky performance art situation? Well, maybe you dont put your stuff on MySpace. (again, NOT a music guy, so sorry if I'm getting the names all wrong)

Outside music, Apple is a classic example of this. Do they make computers? Sure. But so does everyone else. Do they make great computers? Yes, but that's not enough to differentiate them. What they had to do was establish both a system of great products, but also brand with deep and specific significance to it to rise above. This manifested itself in everything from product design, to advertising, to store design, to the way they handled press and live events. Every single aspect of the Apple brand is considered. This is Dave's “being Brilliant” and this is, for better or worse, what it takes to win big.

I know you're probably thinking I'm just giving you a 'hard time' – but I'm not.

it's just that we're consumed in a world now full of consultants and so-called 'advisers' who constantly claim they know all of the answers & advice to give all up & coming artists & musicians – but in fact, they really don't.

(this is why I asked for 'more specifics' from you – NOT to drag you over the coals.)

For example, I recently put out a small collection of 'dummy songs' on a few of the popular, 'you know who' sites out there – just to see what kind of generated-feedback i would get – and believe it or not – I ended up getting about 38-40 responses from all of these various 'advice sites' out there (or 'consultants') who all claim that they just absolutely LOVED the music, and if I would allow them to, they could tell me all of the 'secrets' to the music biz, how to promote myself, come up with tons of 'secret strategies', get my song played on thousands of radio stations, get paid, etc, etc (I'm sure you and many others on here know 'exactly' the type of people I'm referring to here:)

Well, when i mentioned 'dummy songs' a minute ago – it was just that – total 'noise', bleeps, trash – I mean, just plain 'horrible' sounding material, that nobody in their right mind would even listen to. But I actually did this on purpose, just to prove a point: that all of these 'people' & consultants who claimed all of this success for me – didn't even bother to hear or listen to ANY of the music I submitted:) Obviously, these were either just some type of 'generated' emails, or more idiots out there who simply crave money (not music) – all to JUST to get money out of me and make me believe that I had what it took to make it in the music industry! (and I'm pretty damn sure that I'm NOT the first artist that they've done this to

So maybe now you can see why I”m a bit 'fed-up' with scoundrels like these having their way with us musicians at their own expense. I”m not saying that 'you're' just like one of these people – I'm just saying that I've had my fill of stuff like this, and people who claim to know the 'magic secrets' of the music business all of the sudden, (if you know what I mean?) And if you even try to ask these people about 'specifics' as well – they pretty much just give very similar answers or responses just like the ones you've given (very basic, straight-forward – and not a lot of details at all.) So again, I hope you can understand where I'm coming from now? I'm certainly not on here to 'argue' with anyone, or come off in any way sounding like 'elitist pundrity' by any means:)

But I do still stand by what I said about 'good music must come first' – for anyone. And I truly believe that's something in today's music that has been pushed to the far, far background. It's not just 'my' opinion, but it's been revealed as a 'fact' now by many, – that a lot of musicians & artists have let the 'quality' of their writing fall by the wayside to other things such as 'image' or appearance, marketing, 'gimmicks', etc, etc – and I just can't see where that's a good thing for music in ANY genre or decade, you know?

And when you asked me earlier in this thread, 'well what did you think I meant by 'being brilliant?' “it should be obvious!” – I honestly didn't know what you meant. I mean it could've meant several things, such as “are you referring to 'being brilliant' in song-writing, 'brilliant marketing'? – or do you mean 'brilliant' web-tactics? Those are just 2 or 3 examples for now, but hopefully you can see why I was confused by what you meant in 'brilliancy'.

But regardless, I still think that maybe a lot of the 'basics' in music-making now, have been forgotten or somewhat 'lost'.

And I also don't think that there's just one or two 'blanket-statements' that can be given to ALL or ANY musicians or artists out there – which can make any of them 'successful', you know what I mean? Again, a band 'at least' has to be 'good' (if not 'really good' for starters) they have to have 'heart', originality, dedication, LOTS-o-patience and yes, LUCK! (a LOTS of luck to be honest:) – to even stand a remote chance nowadays. Again, all of the 'web-tactics' & schemes in the world, won't 'fix' or allow a crappy band or crappy artist to become successful. It's takes a LOT more than that. And 'originality' is a big one as well. I mean, I would highly imagine that you've heard for yourself on the radio now, that SO many bands seem to follow a lot of these 'popular trends', and end up sounding just like another Matchbox 20, John Mayer, or any other of these 'trite-artists' (boy, that's all we need!) – just because they think it will give them the upper-hand in being successful rock-stars, and completely forgetting about things such as 'originality', 'creativeness', and so forth. Would you call that 'being brilliant' by the way?

Seriously Dave, I'm not trying to bust your balls here – I'm just curious to hear something extremely 'new' brought to the table for all of us – and, yes' – lots of 'specifics', so that maybe – we can eventually 'fix this mess' in the current music world, not only for ourselves, but to the musicians & artists of 'the future' as well. (I'm sure you would agree that hopefully we're NOT listening to the exact same songs & melodies that we're currently listening to now, and have been listening to for about the last 8-10 years now!!

I mean, if you really think about it, go back & look at the last several decades in music all together: the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, & even the 90's – nearly each decade offered up extremely 'different' sounds, approaches, melodies, experimentation, quality, originality, and so on, and so on…………and they also managed to do a lot of this with hardly even a 'fraction' of the technology that we have now!

But 'really', – look at just this last 8-10 years now in music (especially these last 6-7 years) – it's painfully difficult to hear hardly ANYTHING completely 'new' or 'fresh' (and in nearly ANY musical category too – and they actually DO have all of this 'new-technology to work with!!) I just can't see where this is a 'good thing' for music at all. And this is where it starts to seem that a lot of musicians, artists, music corporations, etc of today – simply don't seem to value the 'music' itself so much now – but mostly the 'all-mighty-dollar' and 'success', and how to obtain that same 'success', from the very bottom, straight to the very top – and as quickly as possible, and with hopefully 'no delays'! I mean hell – do a lot of today's musicians or acts really cares what music itself sounds like anymore? (I mean, they 'claim to' – but I really don't think they do) As long as they get to that musical-apex pretty damn fast, and make their bags full of money. And, as many music veterans & experts have said already, “when you have a lot of artists out there like this, who are willing to sacrifice nearly all of the 'true' & good qualities' about music – just so that they can make some decent, fast money and cash-in on their 15 minutes of fame – a LOT of the other really 'great' bands out there right now, simply get lost in the grand scheme of things, pushed to the background, and will more than likely – never be heard………”

So please understand Dave, that I am NOT trying to sound like an 'old hag' here, or any type of elitist – but just simply voicing a major concern, and a concern that I know I'm nowhere NEAR alone on – because it's already been proven by many other professional musicians & experts who've all been in this game for a VERY longtime now – and they are scared as hell too.

And again, I don't really see anything 'wrong' with using 'extra' tactics, or some marketing to help one along. (again, I think one should simply use as many 'techniques & formats' as you can – where's the problem in that?) – but the music, talent, and really 'good' song-writing should ALWAYS come first and foremost – before anything else – period.

By saying that 'commercial music' is the best way for 'success' as you did – I just respectfully have to disagree with that one. If that's the message that we keep putting out to all of the up & coming musicians from here on out – then I personally think we're in for a very long, disappointing, and boring ride in the future of music to come.

(and I'm sorry – but we should just be SO much damn better than that, 'especially' from what all of our great, musical forefathers taught us and left behind for us all to carry on with, and pass the 'musical' torch on to……..)

Seriously, Is this truly the 'best' we can do?

Yes, I see how this could end up being a big circular wordgasm, what with all the quotation marks around “important concepts.”

I appreciate your interest in my interest.

I'm very curious to hear why you think why Fever Ray/Karin Dreijer Andersson is being “useful”, as opposed to merely “brilliant.” In my opinion, Fever ray is a great example of the “be brilliant” point – she is provocative, intriguing, and manages to make artistic statements out of her musical moments.

But where is this Digital Strategy of usefulness, in Fever Ray's approach?

I'm not saying you are wrong about her, or about Digital Strategy. I am, however, trying to make light of the conversational issue that some of us here are having with “specifics.” I think you need to understand that your musician-readers like myself are not necessarily whining because of the burden of added work or confusion at this new digital landscape. We're trying to engage, but we can't always just nod our heads in unison without raising our hands as well.

You're in this. You are and were in Gang of Four, man. You're seeing this a bit differently than those of us who have yet to have that kind of personal impact and experience. So I think asking for “specifics” is more about asking for Clearer Perspective. And what I'm interested in clearing up is how Usefulness manifests itself on the web, and how artists can tap into that.

How are people Using music differently, not just listening to it differently? How are artists providing Utilization of their music, not just availability? How can artists start getting people to think of themselves as Users rather than Listeners? These are the hypothetical questions that need to be explored further on sites like yours. I don't need to be told what to do, or what the recipe for success is. But I am interested in digging a little deeper into these interesting concepts, and not just scratching the surface, saying, “well, y'know, BE useful”, and leaving it at that.

There's a lot worth talking about. I'd hate to see the time go to waste with a circular firing squad of accusations about laziness vs. elitist punditry. I get enough of that reading politics!

“Feeling like a loser is part of being an artist, but I want to challenge the notion of “great music.” Sure, some music that’s great is great for the ages and it’s okay that’s it’s not being heard, but so much of what people call great art (whether it’s a book or a song or a way of doing customer service) isn’t actually great, it’s merely “very good.” Very good music is unheard every day, because very good music is not in short supply. There’s a huge surplus of it.
I’m not equating “great” with “commercial.” I have no doubt that there’s great art that doesn’t sell. But most musicians you and I know are TRYING to be commercial, if commercial means successful, heard, lots of stuff sold, lots of people at the concerts. And in the rush to be successful, sometimes great gets pushed out the window. I’ve sampled hundreds of songs on CDBaby and I can say that almost all of it is very good. And virtually none of it is great, if we define great to mean music I need to buy, to give away, to talk about to everyone I know. Almost none of it changed my life, and that’s what great music does.
Great means unsettling. Great means open to criticism. Great means booed off stage. And great music, like great a idea, spreads. Ideas that spread, win, and so the goal today is not to make great music for 1970 or 1990, but great music for today, for a market that’s super picky and selfish and has ADD. Great is in the ear of the listener, of course, and the definition is simple: if it spreads, then for this market, it’s great.
By definition, Great cannot create widespread apathy.”

(and with all due respect here)

First off – you shouldn't get upset at 'me', or anyone else for that matter for simply asking you to be more specific. You're the one who started this thread, this topic, and also the one who's trying to hand-out some type of advice for musicians – so I really don't see where you're coming from when you say, “well, if I have to explain myself or be more specific to someone, then that person obviously doesn't understand this business or how to use the web.”

(give me a break)

Second, you STILL haven't really been that much more specific with your last reply. Making obvious statements such as 'be brilliant', 'make something useful', or 'have a strategy' – doesn't come off as being very specific (to me at least.)
I simply do not understand where you're offering anything 'new' or prudent here. You make it sound like we just have no clue whatsoever as to what we're doing, and have never even 'heard' of the internet. (I mean seriously?)

I also don't know of hardly ANY bands out there today, who just rely on making a single CD and nothing else. Nearly every single band I know of over the last 10-12 years now have exploited themselves all over the web, in nearly every known way possible it seems. And then when something else comes along, they try that too.

(so again – I'll ask you to be more 'specific' on the details here.)

I also agree with 'Mutamassik' on the massive amount of time that gets consumed with being a part of 'so many' websites in general. There's only so many hours in a day, in a week, etc that you can dedicate to things of that nature. I'm sorry, but the 'music' itself, MUST come first before anything else. If any band or artist chooses to get more wrapped-up in 'web-strategies' over their actual song-writing or talent, I highly doubt that same band or music will be worth 2 cents to listen to anyway.

And that also raises another question for you – “why haven't you mentioned anything about the 'quality' or 'originality' of a band's music coming first?”

I mean shouldn't that come FIRST and foremost, before anything else? Shouldn't that be the foundation and/or main focus for ANY artist out there? (I personally think so.)

I'm sorry, but if a band simply can't write good songs, aren't very original, or just plain-out 'suck' – then all of the 'internet-genius-tactics' in the world aren't going to help. It may sound a bit trite, but I think a lot of musicians today either 'forget' or just skip-over those main areas, then rush themselves onto every website or internet tool available, just to make themselves 'think' or believe that they're 'good' or stand a great chance of being able to make a successful living out of it somehow – and at that same time, they also flood the market and push a lot of other really 'talented' and 'original' bands to the background.

So am I saying to 'avoid' all internet tools or web-strategies? -'no'- but I do think it's a valid point that maybe too many bands or artists now wind-up relying or concentrating 'too much' on the internet alone. Because so many of these bands & artists continually flood the web on a day-to-day basis with any tricks or 'strategies' (as you put it) that they can come up with – has made it not only harder for a lot of 'good' bands to get noticed, but it's also caused a severe decline in the overall 'quality' of today's music.

But if a band is truly talented, tight, original, and just plain 'sounds good' – then I would think it's probably a safe bet to just use as many formats of media as possible – period. Honestly, I could really care less on what Brian Eno has to say about CD's and recorded music being completely dead and compared to whale fat. It would seem pretty stupid to just completely restrict one's self to ONLY web-based formats. (why not just use them all? – not to mention look at the vinyl comeback)

But if you really do know of something in general that's being overlooked here or something that's not been mentioned yet that's truly hindering 'good' artists out there from bettering their chances somehow – then I'd for one, love to hear it. But again – I just wish you'd be a lot more 'specific' with what you're actually talking about – instead of just saying things like, “be brilliant” or “make something happen”.

(and by the way – define 'brilliant' for me while you're at it.)

(and with all due respect here)

First off – you shouldn't get upset at 'me', or anyone else for that matter for simply asking you to be more specific. You're the one who started this thread, this topic, and also the one who's trying to hand-out some type of advice for musicians – so I really don't see where you're coming from when you say, “well, if I have to explain myself or be more specific to someone, then that person obviously doesn't understand this business or how to use the web.”

(give me a break)

Second, you STILL haven't really been that much more specific with your last reply. Making obvious statements such as 'be brilliant', 'make something useful', or 'have a strategy' – doesn't come off as being very specific (to me at least.)
I simply do not understand where you're offering anything 'new' or prudent here. You make it sound like we just have no clue whatsoever as to what we're doing, and have never even 'heard' of the internet. (I mean seriously?)

I also don't know of hardly ANY bands out there today, who just rely on making a single CD and nothing else. Nearly every single band I know of over the last 10-12 years now have exploited themselves all over the web, in nearly every known way possible it seems. And then when something else comes along, they try that too.

(so again – I'll ask you to be more 'specific' on the details here.)

I also agree with 'Mutamassik' on the massive amount of time that gets consumed with being a part of 'so many' websites in general. There's only so many hours in a day, in a week, etc that you can dedicate to things of that nature. I'm sorry, but the 'music' itself, MUST come first before anything else. If any band or artist chooses to get more wrapped-up in 'web-strategies' over their actual song-writing or talent, I highly doubt that same band or music will be worth 2 cents to listen to anyway.

And that also raises another question for you – “why haven't you mentioned anything about the 'quality' or 'originality' of a band's music coming first?”

I mean shouldn't that come FIRST and foremost, before anything else? Shouldn't that be the foundation and/or main focus for ANY artist out there? (I personally think so.)

I'm sorry, but if a band simply can't write good songs, aren't very original, or just plain-out 'suck' – then all of the 'internet-genius-tactics' in the world aren't going to help. It may sound a bit trite, but I think a lot of musicians today either 'forget' or just skip-over those main areas, then rush themselves onto every website or internet tool available, just to make themselves 'think' or believe that they're 'good' or stand a great chance of being able to make a successful living out of it somehow – and at that same time, they also flood the market and push a lot of other really 'talented' and 'original' bands to the background.

So am I saying to 'avoid' all internet tools or web-strategies? -'no'- but I do think it's a valid point that maybe too many bands or artists now wind-up relying or concentrating 'too much' on the internet alone. Because so many of these bands & artists continually flood the web on a day-to-day basis with any tricks or 'strategies' (as you put it) that they can come up with – has made it not only harder for a lot of 'good' bands to get noticed, but it's also caused a severe decline in the overall 'quality' of today's music.

But if a band is truly talented, tight, original, and just plain 'sounds good' – then I would think it's probably a safe bet to just use as many formats of media as possible – period. Honestly, I could really care less on what Brian Eno has to say about CD's and recorded music being completely dead and compared to whale fat. It would seem pretty stupid to just completely restrict one's self to ONLY web-based formats. (why not just use them all? – not to mention look at the vinyl comeback)

But if you really do know of something in general that's being overlooked here or something that's not been mentioned yet that's truly hindering 'good' artists out there from bettering their chances somehow – then I'd for one, love to hear it. But again – I just wish you'd be a lot more 'specific' with what you're actually talking about – instead of just saying things like, “be brilliant” or “make something happen”.

(and by the way – define 'brilliant' for me while you're at it.)

Usefulness seems to be the dividing line between the old music industry and the new web. Music has always been awesome, but you never really associate it with “useful” things. A lot (if not most) of the fun stuff on the internet is actually quite useful, and finds ways to integrate into our daily lives. So it seems, Dave, that pursuing 'usefulness' might be a good inroad to a web strategy that amounts to more than throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks.

On the one hand, I think its a bit unfair to compare musicians to sites like youtube, and facebook, saying that the latter showed more daring in their strategies. They're offering fundamentally different things. Websites are basically software computer programs that are interactive, and aggregate content on the web. Musicians are simply trying to generate their own content and amplify its experience.

On the other hand, I can see how the possibility exists that a musician could take a social-networking or content-aggregation approach to their own web presence. I guess an uninspired example would be having a web forum to discuss similar music, etc, as part of their site.

Might I suggest that you expand upon the concept of how musicians can use the web to “make something useful”, in your future analyses? What artists out there today are being useful? This seems like a subject worth digging deeper into.

First, my many years discussing music business issues on panels has had nothing to do with either saying “please hire me” or “I know best.” The panels simply provide a forum for new ideas to be floated or discussed. I also don't have anything to sell to you if you're a musician. And I made it clear in this essay http://j.mp/5E6DoJ Dear Musicians Please Be Brilliant..that after this year's SXSW I would stop appearing on panels that discussed musicians and the web as I am not seeing any progress – particularly from the musicians themselves.

So to your point – you ask me to be a “lot more specific.” In all the time that I have been speaking on panels I have noticed some really bad traits that musicians display. One of them, before the internet spoiled things for them, was to sign up for a conference like SXSW and head out as if all the answers and problems for their careers could be answered by paying a lot of money to sit through a panel or two, and then thrust a tape or a CD into the hands of a panelist. That was a useless and expensive strategy of course, but hardly one that would derail a career.

Currently, the bad trait is to ignore the fact that access to the social web, and the Internet at large, created one of the biggest societal breakthroughs in history. It has produced a huge cultural shift in society. It has been embraced by everyone, young and old alike, and the smart ones (who had no need to be trained in any computer skills BTW,) jumped in, literally, and started to play in this huge, zero-barrier-to-entry sandbox, and began challenging brands and institutions by repurposing, remixing, mangling and mashing the available content and creating new works from others content.

Meanwhile, except for a handful of smart thinkers, musicians either stood on the sidelines or simply put a toe in the water. Deciding the water was too cold they opened up a MySpace account and put their videos on YouTube. And then began complaining that people were stealing their music online.

Other creative young people began to work hard and understand the power of the web's reach and potential. They found gaps in the matrix that could be filled by Creating Something Useful – so we all got the benefits of Flickr, Napster and YouTube, for instance. Lately we have seen the rise of Facebook, Twitter and FourSquare, companies started by one or two individuals who had an idea that was based around helping people communicate and share online. None of the companies or brands that I mention above either asked permission to start something, nor did they ask people to be “more specific” about how they could be helped in using the web to create these useful tools – they just did it!

To get to your point about me and being more specific, I can only say that if you or any musician out there has to ask me that, then you or they have a deep misunderstanding of how the web works, how music fans are using it and also what is required to get the attention of millions of people who are using the web today.

You already note that there are numerous companies online that profess to help musicians gain attention and/or sell their music, and you already subtly nod to the fact that they really don't work unless the musicians themselves understand that they are all just tools to be applied to a long term strategy for selling their music.

So here's a few pointers for musicians using the web – 1. Be brilliant. 2. Provide content of all kind that resonates deeply with your fans. 3. Forget the idea of simply putting out a CD. 4. Make something useful. 5. Don't ask permission. 6. Have a strategy.

Then read this interview with one of the smartest musicians around, Brian Eno. Here's an excerpt – “The record age was just a blip. It was a bit like if you had a source of whale blubber in the 1840s and it could be used as fuel. Before gas came along, if you traded in whale blubber, you were the richest man on Earth. Then gas came along and you'd be stuck with your whale blubber. Sorry mate – history's moving along. Recorded music equals whale blubber. Eventually, something else will replace it.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jan/17/bri...

I think the 'point' Justin was trying to make – is that you are offering NO new ideas yourself.

In all of this talk, you have completely failed to mention or specify any 'direct' or 'specific' things that artists should be doing or acting upon.

All you're basically saying, is that CD's aren't enough, you tube & myspace aren't enough, etc, etc – but you won't come clean and actually 'say' what bands are 'missing' or 'failing to do'.

And also – what exactly are your credentials? How many bands have you provided true 'success' for? And If so, 'who'?

What makes what YOU'RE trying to do so 'special' or 'different' from any of these other 70,000 companies or sites out there who constantly bombard 'we, the musicians' – with all of this “you need to hire or listen to us, in order to be able to achieve true success!”

Not trying to be a jerk here or anything – but I just wish that you would actually speak more 'specifics' and details – instead of just 'overall' rationalizations like you're doing. I've just heard WAY too many other people like yourself who attend seminars, etc – or claiming to know 'the correct way' of doing things within the music industry for success – yet, never actually tell 'how', 'where', or 'when' to execute any of it.

Now why don't we try this again?

Be a LOT more specific.