Happy New Year, dear friends and readers. I’m sticking with my resolution to post every Wednesday. Please continue to like, comment, and share. I have some good “content”1 planned for coming weeks.
This week I’ll close out my series on the Music Industry as a “relationship business.” I’ve already covered that it’s a toxic sludgepit of scams, frauds, and sociopaths, but at the same time, it’s a great place to make friends! It’s a shapeshifter with constantly changing customs and unwritten rules - especially now that we’re in the thick of such massive disruption. On returning to law practice after my 4+ year experiment as a label executive, I’ve had to rethink how I approach what I do - particularly when it comes to shopping deals for artist clients.
I recently revisited an article I wrote 13 years ago on the idea of industry gatekeepers. The TL/DR is that the business was transforming from a few gatekeepers, such as labels and publishers, to many - and different - gatekeepers, such as publications. I already saw the writing on the wall that shopping deals was mostly a waste of time, and that labels weren’t interested in investing in artist development. Some of what I had to say is quaint - such as the awesome power Pitchfork had during its Reign of Terror. But the conclusion holds up quite well, to wit:
“Don’t [release music] until it’s actually good and original. There’s a glut of [shitty music] out there right now; don’t contribute to that. Make good, thoughtful music and then make a clear plan to get it out there…The new industry is just taking shape, but at the moment it’s possible for artists to find success on their own terms and to remain in charge of their own careers…”
One prediction I’ll make is that the “new industry” isn’t going to stop “taking shape” anytime soon. There’s WAY MORE of a glut of shitty music, and AI is going to exponentially increase the torrent of mediocrity coming our way on every single platform. It’s already happening. There is such a need for great music that reflects our humanity right now - don’t let the good shit get buried under the very high noise floor.
What about the whole success on their own terms/in charge of careers thing, though? I’m happy to report that dream is alive…to the extent artists are able to do their own development. Once an artist is over the development hump - which these days usually means going viral on social media - the major deals are better than they’ve ever been. Yes, that’s right - I was wrong about the encroaching irrelevance of major labels. They’ve had what I see as a resurgence due to their unmatched ability to scale already successful projects. But they don’t really want to hear from you. When the data lines up with their research algorithms - you hear from them. And boy oh boy do you EVER hear from them. It’s feast of famine.
As a label head, I learned again and again that shopping deals for developing artists is usually a bad look. I had one manager, someone I don’t really know, shop me the same so-so act once every month or two for the entire time I worked at Concord. A mediocre act, I should add, one that didn’t have a following. Management offered no data to support the argument that we should sign the act,2 just more and more “for your consideration” emails, catching me up on the band’s mundane bullshit, as if I’d ever expressed interest. Of course, the data was readily available, and unflattering. All this accomplished was to make me think the manager had poor social skills. Seeing that play out time and again has made me extra sensitive about any efforts that might be seen as “shopping” now that I’m back in law practice. And believe me, I’m asked to do it quite a bit.
If you’re reading this and thinking about the best way to approach an industry “gatekeeper,” focus on what I’m saying about data. The reason people don’t routinely shop deals anymore is that data is readily available, and most A&R decisions are strongly supported by data. I’m proud to say that isn’t always how we operated at Rounder - several artists we signed had little or no consumption data to support a trajectory, including Sierra Ferrell. Rounder Senior VP of A&R and in-house producer/engineer Gary Paczosa showed me Sierra’s In Dreams video on YouTube, and I was so blown away that we signed her within a few weeks - knowing someone else would hear it and react similarly. That’s risky within a company because there’s no market indication that it will succeed. But sometimes something is just so obviously great that it has to work. (Here’s the video in question - I mean it’s completely fucking obvious, right? In Dreams)
It’s risky because marketing people typically don’t have the ears or imagination of a musician, producer, or a good A&R person. Their attitude might be something like, “How do you know it’s good if you don’t have any data to back it up?” Is it arrogant to respond by saying, “Clean the wax out of your ears?” I don’t know, and I’m sure any occurrence of that attitude is part of my old school wiring. However, I belive very strongly that I can tell when it’s going to work based on the music alone. Of course, some artists get in their own way, or lack the work ethic or desire to follow up a success. But when it comes to data points that indicate whether there’s a spark that will light the necessary viral fire, there’s really only one I trust every time: The hairs on the back of my neck.
So what is the state of things today? I’ve looked at this from a couple different perspectives in recent years, and I can tell you that companies will come to you when they are ready. They will come to you, no matter who you are, however they can get to you, usually via an army of “scouts” who drop into an artist’s social media DMs. I’ve seen this happen for a few different viral artists I’ve worked with since leaving the label, and it is wild. Before the numbers line up, however, it’ll be crickets. My own conclusion is that it’s better not to reach out at all prior to those moments.
That does NOT mean that I don’t shop at all. There are a handful of people in the business (see my previous post, part 2) who are my good friends, and it’s part of our friendship to share things we’re excited about. That’s shopping in a sense, but it isn’t that “for your consideration” bullshit that really has no place in today’s industry. Also, once an artist client reaches the point of viability where everyone is suddenly showing up, I make sure that the individuals at the labels and publishers I trust and admire know what’s going on. While early stage shopping potentially causes reputational harm, letting people in on a hot prospect is a positive for everyone involved.
If I think about the nearly 20 years I’ve been doing this, I’ve never succesfully shopped a deal for an unpopular artist with any of that “for your consideration” crap. But I have succesfully connected many artists with many labels, publishers, managers, and other team members. My favorite connection story involves a frequent hero in my music biz tales, my friend Chris Swanson, co-founder and head of Secretly Canadian. I posted a clip of my then relatively unknown client Phoebe Bridgers on my personal facebook page in 2016. Chris saw the post and started making efforts to sign Phoebe (which he eventually managed to do) pretty much immediately. Chris is (in my opinion) a real record man, and he saw it and heard it immediately. He didn’t need data to make the call, because there wasn’t any data. I can only assume he was relying on some version of the hairs on the back of his neck.
Hate this word so much.
As a rule, for artists who have music on streaming platforms, anyone who has worse metrics than me was not considered. I definitely woudn’t sign myself, even if I were somebody else (If you get what I’m saying).
I finally got around to buying Something To Look Forward To today, and for what it's worth, I loved it, start to finish, and immediately wanted to hear it again. The guitar solo in Troubleland was a sonic high point (was that you or ALT?). Anyway, appropos of nothing, just thought I'd give you an encouraging word: great work!