After opening for the NOLA-funk of Big Sam's Funky Nation on Thursday in Denver, Frogs Gone Fishin' headed out on the road yesterday. The band woke up around 6:30a and shook off a great night jamming with the band from New Orleans, and headed out. Tour never stands still, and nothing was proof like our adventures in getting to Flagstaff for our first gig last night.
Everything was going smoothly on our 11-hour journey south, cruising at 65 mph, the plains and mountains rushing by on either side of the Tourmobile. Everything gets flatter as one heads into New Mexico from Colorado, and by the time we reached the Arizona border, we were confident about making the night's gig.
Shortly after crossing the AZ border, we stopped at Exit 333 (1/2 of 666, the devil's digits), so Mark (drums) and I could switch places. Jumping in the driver's seat, I turned the key of the Suburban... and nothing happened. The ignition wouldn't turn. We were stranded 130 miles from our gig, 4 hours before it was to begin.
The band jumped into action. After calling AAA we grabbed only the necessary items, the bare essentials to play the show and replaced the back seat in the car with our equipment. Leaving the trailer locked and out of sight, we commenced a cramped two-hour ride with our tow truck driver, Mike, and marvelled at his overpowering and wholly unnecessary use of A/C.
We emerged freezing, but somehow on-time in Flagstaff and played to one of the more enthusiastic audiences we've had since our last tour ended a couple weeks ago. Flagstaff is really an awesome scene and town, and the boys in FGF sincerely thank The Green Room for their hospitality and accommodating staff, especially in our time of hunger and stress about our ongoing transportation dilemma that is Leslie, the '94 Suburban.
Today we travel back to the devil's exit, to rescue our trailer.
Saturday, September 13
Monday, September 8
Music and Personality
I recently stumbled upon an article while reading BBC News, claiming that a psychology professor in Scotland has linked a person's musical taste (by genre) to aspects of their personality.
Unfortunately for this prof, I play a lot of music, like a lot of different music, have a psychology degree, and immediately see multiple problems with his work. Before I drop some scientific method in your face, let's take a look at Professor Adrian North's weighty claim.
The study in question consisted of surveying 36,000 individuals with 104 questions about different types of music and aspects of their personality. The results state, among other things, that classical music fans are introverts, while jazz listeners are outgoing; reggae audiences are gentle, while those who listen to dance music are not gentle; hard rock fans have low self-esteem, while those who enjoy Top 40 Pop have high self esteem. Pretty interesting stuff which makes sense, initially. I do have to hand it to professor North; 36,000 participants in a pysc test is a very large number, and should provide a high level of reliability in the study. But for those of us who think critically about psychology, reliability is not the same as validity. In other words, a study can be very reliable, and wrong. Reliably wrong.
The first problem with our study here, is that over-generalized claims are being made, without any specific data to support them. This may be a bigger problem with the media than with science, but it is incorrect to say that "If you like heavy metal, you have low-self esteem". One could claim that 96.8% of heavy metal fans have low self esteem, but blatant over-generalizations are bad for science and people's perceptions alike.
Second, the personality aspect of the study is relying on self-report data. If I am taking a survey the day after getting fired, losing my mortgage, and finding out that my wife wants a divorce: of course I will self-report that I have low self-esteem! Similarly, on a normal day, most people want to portray themselves as outgoing and positive, regardless of the study's implications. A participant will either make themselves look good, or find reasons to make themselves look bad, very rarely being objective and honest about their condition. This is known as participant bias, or the demand characteristics of a test.
Third and most importantly, no correlative direction can be assumed in any study such as this. In a statement that probably urged me to write this post, prof. North says:
"If you know a person's music preference, you can tell what kind of person they are, who to sell to."
This is simply outrageous. To "prove" that a person likes a certain type of music because of their personality, or that they have certain personality traits because of the music they listen to, is preposterous. As scientists, all we can say is that X percentage of rap fans are X personality, and refine our hypothesis for the next study. That is the scientific method itself. The fact that North then brings in music marketing, claiming record labels could use his questionable claims to target consumers, leaves me stunned and slightly sickened.
Psychology aside, North's results don't make much musical sense, either. I know plenty of people who like jazz and classical, but according to North, these reflect opposite personality types. If reggae fans are gentle, dance fans not gentle, then what personality traits are present in fans of "dance-hall", a music that combines reggae and dance influences? Top 40 fans apparently have high self esteem, heavy metal fans low self-esteem... but I know plenty of hard rock songs that make it to the Top 40 charts!!!
The problem is, I want to agree with professor North. In all areas of life, it is much easier to come up with stereotypes because it helps us define and navigate the world we live in without really thinking about it. In reality, all music fans are individually different and while we can come close to generalizing, we must provide statistics based on unbiased data. Until Mr. North can do that, I suggest he take a hard look at the science he is distributing to the media for popular release.
I'll close with some unrelated statistics, and unlike North, let you interpret the results:
We depend on wind and solar research to show us how to break away from our "addiction to oil". Congress has voted 8 times this year to keep giving tax subsidies to the companies involved with this research. Barack Obama showed up and voted yes, 3 of these 8 times. John McCain showed up exactly zero times, including one occasion where he was in Washington, and the motion failed, by a count of exactly 1 vote...
What kind of music do you think John McCain listens to???
Unfortunately for this prof, I play a lot of music, like a lot of different music, have a psychology degree, and immediately see multiple problems with his work. Before I drop some scientific method in your face, let's take a look at Professor Adrian North's weighty claim.
The study in question consisted of surveying 36,000 individuals with 104 questions about different types of music and aspects of their personality. The results state, among other things, that classical music fans are introverts, while jazz listeners are outgoing; reggae audiences are gentle, while those who listen to dance music are not gentle; hard rock fans have low self-esteem, while those who enjoy Top 40 Pop have high self esteem. Pretty interesting stuff which makes sense, initially. I do have to hand it to professor North; 36,000 participants in a pysc test is a very large number, and should provide a high level of reliability in the study. But for those of us who think critically about psychology, reliability is not the same as validity. In other words, a study can be very reliable, and wrong. Reliably wrong.
The first problem with our study here, is that over-generalized claims are being made, without any specific data to support them. This may be a bigger problem with the media than with science, but it is incorrect to say that "If you like heavy metal, you have low-self esteem". One could claim that 96.8% of heavy metal fans have low self esteem, but blatant over-generalizations are bad for science and people's perceptions alike.
Second, the personality aspect of the study is relying on self-report data. If I am taking a survey the day after getting fired, losing my mortgage, and finding out that my wife wants a divorce: of course I will self-report that I have low self-esteem! Similarly, on a normal day, most people want to portray themselves as outgoing and positive, regardless of the study's implications. A participant will either make themselves look good, or find reasons to make themselves look bad, very rarely being objective and honest about their condition. This is known as participant bias, or the demand characteristics of a test.
Third and most importantly, no correlative direction can be assumed in any study such as this. In a statement that probably urged me to write this post, prof. North says:
"If you know a person's music preference, you can tell what kind of person they are, who to sell to."
This is simply outrageous. To "prove" that a person likes a certain type of music because of their personality, or that they have certain personality traits because of the music they listen to, is preposterous. As scientists, all we can say is that X percentage of rap fans are X personality, and refine our hypothesis for the next study. That is the scientific method itself. The fact that North then brings in music marketing, claiming record labels could use his questionable claims to target consumers, leaves me stunned and slightly sickened.
Psychology aside, North's results don't make much musical sense, either. I know plenty of people who like jazz and classical, but according to North, these reflect opposite personality types. If reggae fans are gentle, dance fans not gentle, then what personality traits are present in fans of "dance-hall", a music that combines reggae and dance influences? Top 40 fans apparently have high self esteem, heavy metal fans low self-esteem... but I know plenty of hard rock songs that make it to the Top 40 charts!!!
The problem is, I want to agree with professor North. In all areas of life, it is much easier to come up with stereotypes because it helps us define and navigate the world we live in without really thinking about it. In reality, all music fans are individually different and while we can come close to generalizing, we must provide statistics based on unbiased data. Until Mr. North can do that, I suggest he take a hard look at the science he is distributing to the media for popular release.
I'll close with some unrelated statistics, and unlike North, let you interpret the results:
We depend on wind and solar research to show us how to break away from our "addiction to oil". Congress has voted 8 times this year to keep giving tax subsidies to the companies involved with this research. Barack Obama showed up and voted yes, 3 of these 8 times. John McCain showed up exactly zero times, including one occasion where he was in Washington, and the motion failed, by a count of exactly 1 vote...
What kind of music do you think John McCain listens to???
Friday, September 5
Cool Websites or The Evil Witch of the Right
I've discovered several new websites which could serve as major tools or resources for music marketing. And by discovered, I mean I just found out about some cool websites, only after a couple million people before me. I'll list these sites below, along with some helpful examples of how they might be employed.
www.stumbleaudio.com
This site is an even more eccentric version of Pandora Radio, which has already introduced me to dozens of artists I've never heard of.
www.twitter.com
Twitter operates on the same concept as a blog, although posts are limited to 140 characters and designed for mobile consumption. For example, if I text "Show tonight @ The Go-Go bar... a benefit concert for the Sarah Palin Is The Craziest Gun-Wielding Wench in Politics Foundation" to my Twitter account, then everyone who has set their account to follow mine will receive the update. They can all come to the show, see my band, and support the above cause!
www.mashable.com
Mashable is not a social networking site like Myspace or Facebook, but a news service that is dedicated to coverage of sites like these. I understand how geeked-out this sounds at the outset, but part of music marketing, or any marketing for that matter, is staying on top of the breadth of options to promote your product.
www.playinghere.com
One thing that impresses me about Playing Here, versus other online concert listings, is that Frogs Gone Fishin' shows up at every major venue we are playing at, without anyone in FGF updating or submitting anything. I especially like the tour map that pops up, so even I can know where we are going to be in 3 weeks... Props to the people at Playing Here for making musician's and fan's lives easier!
ping.fm
This is a site that I don't even understand how to use yet, but it looks to be the cat's pajamas of social networking. Apparently, ping.fm lets you update all of the sites you have an account with, without visiting each site individually. So if I post, "It is appalling that the GOP would choose a candidate who is completely unqualified to be the VP, yet perfectly suited to capture the vote of the religious right..", then the comment will appear on my Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and Blogger pages. If anyone out there has some instructions as to what to do with the beta code ping.fm gave me... please help!
You can see that I am by no means competent with (most) online sources. I do know that overlooking these newer sites or old staples like Facebook/Myspace, would be musical marketing suicide. Internet usage will only be going skyward in coming decades, so those of us entrenched in the archaic poster/handbill/word-of-mouth way of doing things might as well embrace what's coming. Then again, nothing will ever replace the impact that word-of-mouth has. Like when words come out of Sarah Palin's mouth, the impact is truly nauseating.
I'm excited to play music at Wash Park Grill in Denver tonight. The gig will keep me away from one more minute of vomitous politics and keep me around what matters: funky music and funky people.
www.stumbleaudio.com
This site is an even more eccentric version of Pandora Radio, which has already introduced me to dozens of artists I've never heard of.
www.twitter.com
Twitter operates on the same concept as a blog, although posts are limited to 140 characters and designed for mobile consumption. For example, if I text "Show tonight @ The Go-Go bar... a benefit concert for the Sarah Palin Is The Craziest Gun-Wielding Wench in Politics Foundation" to my Twitter account, then everyone who has set their account to follow mine will receive the update. They can all come to the show, see my band, and support the above cause!
www.mashable.com
Mashable is not a social networking site like Myspace or Facebook, but a news service that is dedicated to coverage of sites like these. I understand how geeked-out this sounds at the outset, but part of music marketing, or any marketing for that matter, is staying on top of the breadth of options to promote your product.
www.playinghere.com
One thing that impresses me about Playing Here, versus other online concert listings, is that Frogs Gone Fishin' shows up at every major venue we are playing at, without anyone in FGF updating or submitting anything. I especially like the tour map that pops up, so even I can know where we are going to be in 3 weeks... Props to the people at Playing Here for making musician's and fan's lives easier!
ping.fm
This is a site that I don't even understand how to use yet, but it looks to be the cat's pajamas of social networking. Apparently, ping.fm lets you update all of the sites you have an account with, without visiting each site individually. So if I post, "It is appalling that the GOP would choose a candidate who is completely unqualified to be the VP, yet perfectly suited to capture the vote of the religious right..", then the comment will appear on my Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and Blogger pages. If anyone out there has some instructions as to what to do with the beta code ping.fm gave me... please help!
You can see that I am by no means competent with (most) online sources. I do know that overlooking these newer sites or old staples like Facebook/Myspace, would be musical marketing suicide. Internet usage will only be going skyward in coming decades, so those of us entrenched in the archaic poster/handbill/word-of-mouth way of doing things might as well embrace what's coming. Then again, nothing will ever replace the impact that word-of-mouth has. Like when words come out of Sarah Palin's mouth, the impact is truly nauseating.
I'm excited to play music at Wash Park Grill in Denver tonight. The gig will keep me away from one more minute of vomitous politics and keep me around what matters: funky music and funky people.
Saturday, August 30
Bob Dylan, Nick Carter
In our continuing discussion of intellectual property, music, and the question of what art is worth in general, I've received some very insightful and oftentimes profane comments about the subject. It seems as though you all are somewhat heated by the subject. Pay too much for that sub-par Dixie Chicks album?
Here is a portion of one comment, posted by one gdragon:
"What a*^-hole decided that any musician's song is worth 10 cents a play, no matter what!? I mean seriously, ten cents!? That means, in the marketplace, Bob Dylan receives the same amount per play as does Nick Carter. . .that sh*t's f*cked up!"
I can certainly see where you are coming from, gdragon. You are correct that the marketplace in the music industry is indeed, f*cked. If Bob Dylan is a classic Ford from the 60's, and Nick Carter is a 2005 Saturn Ion, why would anyone consider paying an equal amount for the two cars? You would have to be truly loony toony to actually consider that.
In the case of the music business however, our government has decided to extend the long arm of the law into a business sector where it has no place, where the free market could certainly work things out naturally.
Just like the Patriot Act or the drug war, the Feds will certainly claim they are just trying to "protect" you.
It is true that the 10 (actually 9.1) cents that gdragon speaks of, known as the statutory rate (stop giggling, that's not funny), does prevent many musicians and songwriters from getting royalty screwed (pun intended). But in the grand scheme of things, placing a price, any price on art is devaluing its potential worth. As soon as anyone decides that a song is worth more that 10 cents, the law has effectively prevented the worth of that art from going up.
Obviously Bob Dylan would like to receive more than the statutory rate, and probably deserves to do so. Then again, will I be happy when I receive my first royalty check for $.45? You bet your booty I will.
I welcome any/all comments/questions about this subject, it really does torque some people off. What any musicians reading this should know, is that your chances of generating revenue are decent when performing live, somewhat conceivable when selling your music, and virtually impossible when solely depending on royalties. This is largely because of the increasing irrelevance of radio, maybe next time we can dive in to that...
Frogs Gone Fishin' just finished a three-day run over the weekend to the mountains and Boulder. It was great to play a college town during the school year, something FGF really hasn't done because we've all been at school in different locales. The kids at CU really know how to throw down a party (especially after a CU win over CSU, the big state rival). We are also selling our old trailer in order to buy a bigger, better, sexier trailer.
If you're in Denver, come check out FGF at Wash Park Grille this Friday. And regardless of where you are, have a safe and happy week!
Here is a portion of one comment, posted by one gdragon:
"What a*^-hole decided that any musician's song is worth 10 cents a play, no matter what!? I mean seriously, ten cents!? That means, in the marketplace, Bob Dylan receives the same amount per play as does Nick Carter. . .that sh*t's f*cked up!"
I can certainly see where you are coming from, gdragon. You are correct that the marketplace in the music industry is indeed, f*cked. If Bob Dylan is a classic Ford from the 60's, and Nick Carter is a 2005 Saturn Ion, why would anyone consider paying an equal amount for the two cars? You would have to be truly loony toony to actually consider that.
In the case of the music business however, our government has decided to extend the long arm of the law into a business sector where it has no place, where the free market could certainly work things out naturally.
Just like the Patriot Act or the drug war, the Feds will certainly claim they are just trying to "protect" you.
It is true that the 10 (actually 9.1) cents that gdragon speaks of, known as the statutory rate (stop giggling, that's not funny), does prevent many musicians and songwriters from getting royalty screwed (pun intended). But in the grand scheme of things, placing a price, any price on art is devaluing its potential worth. As soon as anyone decides that a song is worth more that 10 cents, the law has effectively prevented the worth of that art from going up.
Obviously Bob Dylan would like to receive more than the statutory rate, and probably deserves to do so. Then again, will I be happy when I receive my first royalty check for $.45? You bet your booty I will.
I welcome any/all comments/questions about this subject, it really does torque some people off. What any musicians reading this should know, is that your chances of generating revenue are decent when performing live, somewhat conceivable when selling your music, and virtually impossible when solely depending on royalties. This is largely because of the increasing irrelevance of radio, maybe next time we can dive in to that...
Frogs Gone Fishin' just finished a three-day run over the weekend to the mountains and Boulder. It was great to play a college town during the school year, something FGF really hasn't done because we've all been at school in different locales. The kids at CU really know how to throw down a party (especially after a CU win over CSU, the big state rival). We are also selling our old trailer in order to buy a bigger, better, sexier trailer.
If you're in Denver, come check out FGF at Wash Park Grille this Friday. And regardless of where you are, have a safe and happy week!
Tuesday, August 26
The Feds and Pandora's Box
I received a very eloquent comment from a reader after my last post which I'll re-post in its entirety:
"Why does the gov't f&%k the scene!? Music tax is killing the music! Why?! WHY!?! HOW DO YOU STOP IT!? But seriously. . .why does gov't f*@k Pandora. . ."
Thank you Tony B for your inspiring questions! Tony also sent me the following link which he is referencing in his commentary:
< blog.wired.com
For anyone who has not yet discovered the musical wonder that is Pandora.com, you better hurry! The headline of the article which Tony B is so peeved about is titled "Pandora Could Be First Major Casualty of New Royalty Rates". If you are one those who don't know, Pandora is a free online music radio which plays stations that are customized to listener's musical preferences. Type in The Bob Marley Station, and the result is a constant stream of reggae-influenced songs, not necessarily the African Herbsman himself, which the listener can then approve or shun. These "I Like It"/"I Don't Like It" ratings put forth by the listener are then applied to an algorithm of over 250 musical variables and bam!: a radio station perfectly tailored to your aural palette. Pretty neat. It's so neat that I can see why Tony B is all torqued off about The Feds raising royalty rates for artists. Then again, I am an artist and stand to make a whopping 10 cents every time one of my songs is played online!
At the outset, it seems that us songwriters have a clear-cut choice: to support rising royalty rates. Then again, Pandora is a just about the best promotional and marketing tool for a new artist that could be imagined at this point in technological history. A short discussion of exactly what intellectual property is might help us decide what we really think...
You see Tony, the federal government has in place protections for people who are the copyright owners of something we like to call intellectual property. Because art and entertainment are largely intangible concepts, it is hard to ascribe value to a product which is not monetarily standard. Art means something different to everyone and therefore has a different price depending on who you ask to value it. As we all know however, most people are greedy and will gladly enjoy music or a book or a movie or a sculpture for free, given the chance. I know I fall into this category! As much as I would love to put up an esoteric, uber-artistic front of strictly paying for the art I enjoy, the pragmatic considerations of my post-grad musician's budget prevent this entirely. (I have earned 98 cents from Google AdSense writing this blog; I'll need an accountant in no time!)
So as the Feds decide what to do about online royalty rates, Pandora-listeners and songwriters alike anxiously await the decision. As of now, according to above article on wired.com, there is "no specific day on which Pandora will go offline, assuming rates are not changed" according to Pandora founder Tim Westergren.
So chill, Tony. Pandora is not going anywhere anytime soon. They are financed by venture capital and advertsing. Given their listenership, I think they will figure things out. As for us musicans, any royalty issue will come down to the simple economics of whether the promotional return on a song played outweighs the 9.5 centavos we stand to earn from the Copyright Board's legislation.
Personally, I would love to give my music away for free if it meant that the person listening would then come to multiple shows (which earn higher revenue for artists than albums, anyway), buy a Frogs Gone Fishin' t-shirt and matching lighter-holder along with the two-disc DVD box set....
Until that day, all one can do is write solid songs and try to play outrageously fun shows. Focusing on that is a lot more fun than fretting over 10 cents.
A very good article by David Byrne:
www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne
"Why does the gov't f&%k the scene!? Music tax is killing the music! Why?! WHY!?! HOW DO YOU STOP IT!? But seriously. . .why does gov't f*@k Pandora. . ."
Thank you Tony B for your inspiring questions! Tony also sent me the following link which he is referencing in his commentary:
< blog.wired.com
For anyone who has not yet discovered the musical wonder that is Pandora.com, you better hurry! The headline of the article which Tony B is so peeved about is titled "Pandora Could Be First Major Casualty of New Royalty Rates". If you are one those who don't know, Pandora is a free online music radio which plays stations that are customized to listener's musical preferences. Type in The Bob Marley Station, and the result is a constant stream of reggae-influenced songs, not necessarily the African Herbsman himself, which the listener can then approve or shun. These "I Like It"/"I Don't Like It" ratings put forth by the listener are then applied to an algorithm of over 250 musical variables and bam!: a radio station perfectly tailored to your aural palette. Pretty neat. It's so neat that I can see why Tony B is all torqued off about The Feds raising royalty rates for artists. Then again, I am an artist and stand to make a whopping 10 cents every time one of my songs is played online!
At the outset, it seems that us songwriters have a clear-cut choice: to support rising royalty rates. Then again, Pandora is a just about the best promotional and marketing tool for a new artist that could be imagined at this point in technological history. A short discussion of exactly what intellectual property is might help us decide what we really think...
You see Tony, the federal government has in place protections for people who are the copyright owners of something we like to call intellectual property. Because art and entertainment are largely intangible concepts, it is hard to ascribe value to a product which is not monetarily standard. Art means something different to everyone and therefore has a different price depending on who you ask to value it. As we all know however, most people are greedy and will gladly enjoy music or a book or a movie or a sculpture for free, given the chance. I know I fall into this category! As much as I would love to put up an esoteric, uber-artistic front of strictly paying for the art I enjoy, the pragmatic considerations of my post-grad musician's budget prevent this entirely. (I have earned 98 cents from Google AdSense writing this blog; I'll need an accountant in no time!)
So as the Feds decide what to do about online royalty rates, Pandora-listeners and songwriters alike anxiously await the decision. As of now, according to above article on wired.com, there is "no specific day on which Pandora will go offline, assuming rates are not changed" according to Pandora founder Tim Westergren.
So chill, Tony. Pandora is not going anywhere anytime soon. They are financed by venture capital and advertsing. Given their listenership, I think they will figure things out. As for us musicans, any royalty issue will come down to the simple economics of whether the promotional return on a song played outweighs the 9.5 centavos we stand to earn from the Copyright Board's legislation.
Personally, I would love to give my music away for free if it meant that the person listening would then come to multiple shows (which earn higher revenue for artists than albums, anyway), buy a Frogs Gone Fishin' t-shirt and matching lighter-holder along with the two-disc DVD box set....
Until that day, all one can do is write solid songs and try to play outrageously fun shows. Focusing on that is a lot more fun than fretting over 10 cents.
A very good article by David Byrne:
www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)