I love the way you write. Concise and deliberate and always useful. This is excellent stuff.

One thing that appears undervalued in the music industry (it would seem) is consistency. You can have the best music in the world, but if your regular or casual fan base can't find you in fifteen seconds, you've already lost the battle of the attention span. Similarly with gigs, I can't count the number of bands / clubs that are extremely poor about posting consistent and correct information about bookings and shows, and that's in the short run; in the long run, such things are practically non-existent.

Another thing that piques my interest is the chicken-egg game of style and content.

On the one extreme, you have the hyper-manufactured images of the post-mouseketeer crowd (Britney, Christina, Justin) based on demographic desires.

On the other extreme you have revolutionary music like Kraftwerk (brought electronic music to the mainstream), Helmet (brought breakbeat and metal together and to the mainstream), Nirvana (love em or hate em, they built the genre that Pearl Jam homogenized and merchandised). In between you have musicians "struggling to find their muse", rehashing the same tired topics in the same tired genres.

Which is better? 'Selling Out' to make a fortune, 'keeping it real' and hoping you'll be that 1%, or remaining so mainstream that you could do background music for a liquid soap commercial?

I write. I write contemporary fiction. I'd love to see a million copies of a book of mine sold... But I wouldn't write pulp fiction crap just to turn a buck; I want to see quality. However, I 'take care of business' first. I try to fill all of the blocks in Maslow's hierarchy of needs before getting writing, which I equate to the level of self actualization. That is, I don't tie my "art" to my livelyhood, so I can affort to be self-righteous and picky on what I write and how it is presented.

Professional musicians (and writers) don't have that choice. Their art and marketing and image and expression are all tied into one package. They need to perform to live. Does this basically mean that if an artist is uncompromising in their style, they're destined to fail? Sadly, I think that's exactly what it means.

Here's the tie-in to the previous article, though it took a while. There's an old perspective in business, formerly harbored by the RIAA (they're starting to get it), and still held by cable companies (why they won't go to a la carte programming), churches, and several 'lofty' professional and community organizations. That perspective is this: "Here's what I have. It's good. You should want it. I used to be able to force you to want it, and now I can't.". The RIAA used to let artists release two good songs on CDs full of crap...until people started simply downloading what they wanted, and ignoring the rest. Cable companies are going to lose G4, EWTN, The Fishing Channel, etc. when they aren't riding on the fees of more successful channels. Professional and community organizations used to be able to compel memberships due to peer, supervisory, or community pressure. Churches used to be much the same, and could shelter their flocks from clear knowledge of other religions.

These days, people have access to more channels of information, persuasion, and selection. Whereas knowing how to present the material is important, it is far more important to understand as to whether or not you're presenting something that people will want in the first place. Beyond that, the marketplace is national, and global. Selling to your local crowd is easy, because you know your own people. Selling to a nameless, faceless music scene a thousand, two thousand, or 6,500 miles away is where the skill comes in. You need to understand how to market to a diverse crowd. You need to step out of your comfort zone. Palm trees can live through hurricanes because they can bend nearly to the ground without breaking. How flexible are you willing to be? How far can you bend?

My beef with "don't make an album": okay, maybe don't constrain yourself to the album format as a business decision, because it's probably not a good one -- but as an artistic decision, nobody should be told not to follow their heart if it wants to make a song cycle, concept album, rock opera, etc., any more than a painter should be told not to do anything larger than a 3" x 5" card.

I may be a lone crusader in this, and I can feel all the eyes of "WTF is that guy on about?" falling upon me, but dammit, I'll take the humiliation, because I love great albums. It takes me more than four minutes to truly captivate me, and I'm sure I can't be completely alone in that. So whatever the future brings, I'll always have my eyes open for ways to express larger things than just songs. Who's with me?

Paul wrote in the comments:

"Does this basically mean that if an artist is uncompromising in their style, they're destined to fail? Sadly, I think that's exactly what it means."

Really? When's the last time you read a book, watched a movie, or experienced any kind of entertainment or art that had you coming away from it saying, "man, that was such an amazing compromise"?

Just because people have shown they can make some money creating something they don't even like themselves, doesn't mean it's worth doing. If you think the creative equivalent of a wedding band would somehow be at least more fun than a dreary office or factory job, then be glad you can have fun with such a broken, half-way stimulation (no personal journey, no facing the unknown, no discovery, just "playing notes" like coloring by number)... but for many of us, there are worse things than simply not making money.

The word "compromise" should be reserved for budgets, divorce settlements, and other unexpressive things.

Quote from Keith:
Really? When's the last time you read a book, watched a movie, or experienced any kind of entertainment or art that had you coming away from it saying, man, that was such an amazing compromise ?

Keith, the answer is pretty much never, which is my point. Compromises are rarely amazing, which is why I watch director commentary on DVDs, uncut films, and love Stephen King's 'The Stand' (uncut) but can't stand The Stand (edited).

However, Stephen King would have never gotten 'The Stand' (uncut) out if he hadn't already played the game and allowed artistic sacrifice in the past. Metallica went the other way around, where they started with a strong following in their niche...and when they left Fleming Rasmussen for Bob Rock, they intentionally 'mainstreamed' their sound and made a ton of money. They could have chosen to adhere to the incredible sound that they built early on, but they went for money instead. King started by making a living at writing, and then used his clout to assert himself and get "his" version out there.

Whereas I applaud your commitment to the concept of art for art's sake, that only extends as far as not being able to feed, clothe, and shelter yourself. As to the rest of the comment, I'm a bit curious as to your analogies--as I tend to disagree with each item, I'll poke at them one by one. It's nothing personal, but it does sound a bit like a jaded, die-cut musician perspective, and not terribly open minded, not to mention a bit irrational.

Quote from Keith:
Just because people have shown they can make some money creating something they don't even like themselves, doesn't mean it's worth doing. If you think the creative equivalent of a wedding band would somehow be at least more fun than a dreary office or factory job, then be glad you can have fun with such a broken, half-way stimulation (no personal journey, no facing the unknown, no discovery, just playing notes like coloring by number)... but for many of us, there are worse things than simply not making money.

1. Creative equivalent of a wedding band? Being happily married, I'm not sure how a strong commitment to something you love could ever be a bad thing. Even in a great marriage, you understand that you sometimes have to do things you would personally prefer not to do, for the greater good. I can't think of a non snarky way of saying this, but it's what I would call "being responsible".

2. The brush on which you paint factory or office jobs is somewhat purple prose. I have an office job, and it's incredible. I drive over an hour each way each day to my job, and I actually look forward to going to work every day. If, in someone's 'day job' they experience the "no personal journey, no facing the unknown, no discovery", then that's due to a lack of a personal commitment to excellence, and probably indicates someone who jousts at the windmills of "it's not fair" and "it's not my fault".

3. the whole concept of what I wrote wasn't that an artist should color by numbers (at which point they are a medium for marketing, not really an 'artist'), but that an artist often needs compromise to a greater or lesser degree to ensure that their art is received. If a guitar falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

4. By saying that compromise should be reserved for the unexpressive, you're saying that making music and making money with music are mutually exclusive things. If you choose to pair the two (for instance, you include the word 'budget' as one of your unexpressive examples), then compromise will necessarily have to factor in.

In summary, if you feel this way, I can assume that either:

A) You 'made it' right out of the gate, and don't feel that anyone else of any quality shouldn't (the Terry Goodkind philosophy)

B) Someone else is helping you pay your bills, and you're fully expressive of self.

C) You're a member of the Don Quixote crowd.

D) You have a primary job, which relegates music to "a hobby you would really like to see go somewhere".
*I'm probably in this crowd, as I write, but I'm not willing to risk my family's security so that I can pursue my career as a writer. I acknowledge there's a tradeoff, as much as I would love to be a professional writer.

Whereas I applaud your commitment to the concept of art for art's sake, that only extends as far as not being able to feed, clothe, and shelter yourself.

It's too bad that the neural/synaptic links in so many brains have those two entities so tightly intertwined that we can't think of one without immediately thinking of the other. Art and commerce are only related to the extent that some art happens to sometimes make money. Money doesn't validate it, it only creates the illusion of validation for onlookers who don't appreciate the music outright. There are other forms of success. (Even money, like all forms of reward, can come in very indirect, mysterious, and "karmic" ways, on which I'd be going way outside the scope of this blog to elaborate any further.)

Regarding "compromise" -- it's not the acts you're talking about, it's the use of the word that drives me batty.

Metallica made some albums that their old fans didn't like as much because it wasn't what they were used to. If it wasn't their idea to, oh, I don't know, incorporate actual melodies into their songs (ha, I exaggerate), then whoever's idea it was, more power to him, and kudos to them for not making the same album over and over.

As for the Stephen King example, one exerts as much power or control over one's work as one can. When you don't yet have enough power to get a director's cut out, you put out the one you can. I think "compromise" is the wrong word for it; to me, "compromise" would mean never putting out the director's cut at all, or giving up on even trying to.

I am all for being open to other people's input. But in the end you have to make a choice. Some person tells you he likes your song better when it's faster. If you're on the fence, and didn't know which way to go with it, you thank him for making your mind up for you, and do it his way. But if you're totally in love with the slower version, you find a way to get it on tape, whether you have to also do the faster version or not. Eventually people will be glad you did. It doesn't matter what kind of "compromised" versions you have to make along the way; those are all just byproducts.

but it does sound a bit like a jaded, die-cut musician perspective, and not terribly open minded, not to mention a bit irrational

Jaded? You're the one that started a sentence off with the word "sadly". :)

You sound like you've developed a reflexive shield against the implication that if you aren't as crazy as the pompous, arrogant "artist" next door, that you aren't fully living your life. I have no idea how you live your life, and you're the only one with the right to assess it. All I would ever ask of you is to respect my right to live my life a little bit sideways of yours, and give my motives the benefit of the doubt. I may not be your twin, but I'm not your evil opposite either.

That said, wedding bands are lame. :)

1. Creative equivalent of a wedding band? Being happily married, I'm not sure how a strong commitment to something you love could ever be a bad thing. Even in a great marriage, you understand that you sometimes have to do things you would personally prefer not to do, for the greater good. I can't think of a non snarky way of saying this, but it's what I would call "being responsible".

For the past twenty five years, I've been waking up every morning with the same love of and commitment to music. I sometimes have to do things I would prefer not to do, like allocate time in a busy day for working on tedious, fussy editing and revising. Or foregoing a reproductive process that I'm not ready to follow through with. The responsible thing for me to do would be to only ever choose a partner who shares, complements, and supports that passion (which clearly ain't goin' away any time soon), rather than competing with it, to the detriment of both the relationship and the art.

2. The brush on which you paint factory or office jobs is somewhat purple prose. I have an office job, and it's incredible. I drive over an hour each way each day to my job, and I actually look forward to going to work every day. If, in someone's 'day job' they experience the "no personal journey, no facing the unknown, no discovery", then that's due to a lack of a personal commitment to excellence, and probably indicates someone who jousts at the windmills of "it's not fair" and "it's not my fault".

That brush is fairly common, and I was using it as an example of why someone might choose to make crappy music for a living. I'm saying it's a bad reason.

3. the whole concept of what I wrote wasn't that an artist should color by numbers (at which point they are a medium for marketing, not really an 'artist'), but that an artist often needs compromise to a greater or lesser degree to ensure that their art is received. If a guitar falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

I agree that music should be heard, but I don't agree that the way to get it heard is to make something you don't even like. Music is organic in nature, and to invest a lot of energy into faking it by using the extremities of your body without getting your soul involved can really screw up your ability to channel your muse when you try to create something great later on.

4. By saying that compromise should be reserved for the unexpressive, you're saying that making music and making money with music are mutually exclusive things. If you choose to pair the two (for instance, you include the word 'budget' as one of your unexpressive examples), then compromise will necessarily have to factor in.

Everything is inter-related with everything else. I just have a distaste for the idea of playing "down to" an audience, like you think they're all a bunch of retards, when you could be giving them something to be inspired by.

Keith, I find it unfortunate that now that you have clarified your perspective, you have left me with little to nothing with which I would like to argue.

In regards to:
You sound like you've developed a reflexive shield against the implication that if you aren't as crazy as the pompous, arrogant "artist" next door, that you aren't fully living your life.

...Actually, it's more like...I'm a very logic driven person, even in my creativity, it has to 'make sense'. Often times the "artist next door" will make an arguement based on how they feel about an issue, rather than the issue at hand. Now that you've clarified, I think you are giving a rational argument--my apologies for not giving you the benefit of the doubt in the first place. I think there is a line that has to be walked between art and commerce, and whenever possible, the random-odd footstep that deviates should go towards art. However, marketing, capitalism, and artist income needs often define to what degree such things are possible. Conviction is important, but when talking in a sales context, "incorporating other views to reach a common goal" (see, I didn't say compromise!) has a strong hand as well.

Actually, it's more like...I'm a very logic driven person, even in my creativity, it has to 'make sense'

er, ironic.

That should read:
Actually, it's more like...I'm a very logic driven person, AND even in my creativity, it has to 'make sense'

Paul: rock on. I raise my... well, I'm not drinking a beer, so I raise my Dr. Pepper to you. I know, that's lame. :)

I think the imperfect real world, with everything in it that we like AND don't like, is our canvas. If the canvas is shaped like a three minute single, we do our best to inject our spirit into that three minute single. Right now, though, as musicians, we don't really know what the hell it's shaped like. So there's a lot of feeling around in the dark. (Hence the attraction to this website, and the hope that there will be clues here.)

I'd love to approach it logically, but I don't think I even have that option. So I turn my stuff on, plug my guitar and/or microphone in, and make the best guess I can as to what I ought to be playing or singing. My only "structure" is this huge list of songs to keep working on, and the occasional intuitive jolt. I don't even have people around to suggest that I produce something differently -- sometimes I wish I did, sometimes I'm thankful I don't -- so I don't know how well I would deal with that.

But I guess that initial acceptance of "this is how things are RIGHT NOW" as a starting point is sort of like the lower part of the hierarchy of needs you mentioned, so just making that observation and going from there, for me, is kind of the equivalent of satisfying that lower part first.

That's not to say I'm not late on some bills, or don't have some laundry piling up. But I try to manage that stuff. I really do.

Hey Bruce,
I like how you cover a wide range of topics in the music biz...keep up the GREAT work!
-Bobby Rotten