I went to a music industry networking event on Thursday and one of the people there wondered why bands aren't selling tickets to sound checks. He mentioned that some venues are now selling VIP backstage passes.
So I began to think what is and isn't for sale these days and if there are limits to what can or should be sold.
Here are some music-related examples of what extra money can and does buy:
PRIVATE PARTIES
The volume of business in that rarefied sector has surged dramatically in recent years. It's now quietly commonplace for A-list stars to sing to middle-aged billionaires as they blow out candles.
"You have a lot of people who want to celebrate their 40th or 50th birthday party and have someone there whose music meant a great deal to them during a part of their life," [Robert Norman, who heads the corporate and private events division for Creative Artists Agency] said. "They have the money, and if they are willing to spend enough of it, they can get the Rolling Stones. Their wives might also say, 'I love Green Day, and I want them for the 30th birthday party.' You can make that happen these days."
The notion of Grammy-winning artists moonlighting as wedding singers at the peak of their careers would have been scoffed at a decade ago. But times and taboos change. Now, according to Norman, it's rare to find an artist who won't at least peruse the offer sheet. "You too can rent a rock star," Los Angeles Times, 1/11/07.
For the exorbitant price tag, ticket buyers will get the chance to see Prince, Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds, Billy Joel, James Taylor and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers in separate shows during July and August in an "intimate' outdoor setting." "Only in the Hamptons: a $15,000 Rock Concert,"ABC News, 7/12/07.
Musicians are also offering non-music packages as a way to generate extra money and sometimes attention. The artist who has gotten the most publicity for doing this is Josh Freese, who has sold lunch dates and trips to Disneyland.
Another variation are the VIP packages are being offered by artists, venues, and events. A few examples:
Here's a company, All Access Today, that will put together VIP packages for artists.
Not all artists and venues offer these packages, though. One reason is the recession.
It also makes sense that VIP packages would be on their way out. Paying a couple hundred bucks for preferential treatment seems strange at a time when all signs point to more cautious spending. "The big ballers just don't have the money to come out and drop $500 on bottle service any more," says [Travis Hellyer, who handles talent for Mezzanine], who has had to adjust offers to touring acts based on a drop in VIP sales. "Tough economic times hit Yoshi's, VIPs, and your CD collection," SF Weekly, 12/10/08.
(On the other hand, Rolling Stone says VIP packages are doing well. But the magazine only cited major acts.)
Another reason why you may not see a VIP package is if there is no financial benefit to the artists/bands and therefore they don't agree to it.
Although most VIP deals sell access to bands, the offers usually don't have an impact on how much money a group makes. Sometimes artists, promoters or venues split the extra cash. But most headliners work for a guaranteed amount that the venue has to pay, regardless of how many tickets it sells. Typically, the VIP ticket just helps the promoter reach that amount. "VIP FTW!: How bands are using VIP packages to give fans more bang for their buck,"St. Louis Music, 9/23/09.
In some cases VIP packages fall short because the people who have the money to spend on them want more than just a meet-and-greet. They actually want to have some serious face time with the stars.
We used to include in our definition of access places you couldn’t normally gain entrance to. VIP access to a major sporting event, for example, used to sell fine on its own merits. But even those types of lots have lost their allure, if the buyer isn’t sure that they’ll be building a relationship while they attend it. "Sell Relationships Not Stuff at Your Fundraising Auction,"Reynolds & Buckley Fundraising Blog, 11/3/09.
Okay, so now I have established areas of music where selling access is pretty common. But is there a line beyond which one shouldn't sell access?
Sometimes celebrities will do for charity what they might not be comfortable doing just to raise money for themselves. Here are three examples of "celebrity access for charity."
In fields outside of entertainment and sports, selling access is sometimes frowned upon. For example, while in politics donations often come with invitations to special events where the donors can hang out with politicians and the celebrities who support them, the practice has raised many concerns. Here's an example of another type of VIP offering that was aborted because of controversy.
Washington Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth yesterday canceled plans for a series of policy dinners at her home after learning that marketing fliers offered corporate underwriters access to Post journalists, Obama administration officials and members of Congress in exchange for payments as high as $250,000. "Washington Post Publisher Cancels Planned Policy Dinners After Outcry,"Washington Post, 7/3/09.
The stakes aren't so high in the music business, so presumably selling access to those with money won't trigger the same objections. However, are there situations where musicians have or might cross a line? Where does good business end and tackiness begin? If you have an opinion, please share in the comments section.
I'll leave you with this.
So just wanted to keep you all updated on my open house Garage Sale! There's so much stuff there that I can't even go through them all! I don't have time! The ONLY thing I'm taking with me from that house is my Piano and my 2 flatscreen TV's. Everything else is for sale. From High end dresses, to super sexy shoes, stilletos, to a refrigerator, to my washer and dryer, my California King size Bed INCLUDING the bedframe, lamps, personal love letters, I mean, pretty much EVERYTHING is for sale.
[Gang of Four] really went off the deep end with their reward for fans who donate £45 — along with a book showing “ceramic tiles depicting the last 40 years of world history” created by band members and “a book of drawings of our emotions,” 500 “Ultimate Content Cans” will contain vials of blood....
Comin' to see the Vandals tonight in Anaheim w/Bad Religion? I'm going to be selling my CD out the back of my station wagon tonight from 7-7:30 on the NE corner of Chapman and Harbor in the Mega Shoe Factory/Del Taco parking lot. Come say hi and buy a CD (I might be selling other bands CD's and some clothes too. Maybe some energy bars?) Facebook | Josh Freese, 4/15/10.
UPDATE, 4/18/10
Paying someone like Gotti, Kardashian or Snooki four or five figures to step foot inside a garishly decorated club may seem like a rip-off. But C-listers are considerably cheaper than hiring the bigger-name musicians who used to pack clubs. Doing some quick math, [Andrea Hayes, an entertainment broker] adds up the cost of music: fat performance fees, expensive sound systems and needy entourages. "Reality show stars cost less." ...
One other difference between hiring a musical act and a fameseeking reality star: a certain amount of humiliation is part of the package. "We paid [Snooki] for three hours but I actually had to ask her to leave after two hours," [George] Fox says. "She was sweating so hard on the dance floor that her spray tan bled on my girlfriend's $300 Ed Hardy tank top." "Inside the Bizarre World of Reality TV Nightclub Appearances,"Gawker, 4/18/10.
In my last post (But Is It Art?) I wrote about how technology enables more people to make music. And I have done blog posts on fan involvement and audience participation. The reason I think all of this is relevant is that some are touting a wealth of opportunities for musicians today because the Internet allows them more direct access to fans than in the past. But I have been pointing out that this concept is still based on the idea that there are artists and there are fans.
But what about a world where there are only artists, and no fans? If we are going to anticipate the future of the music business, we need to think about this possible scenario. And based on what I have seen in terms of audience participation both at shows and online, artists who provide the most opportunities for engagement seem to do well. I've been taking it a step further to suggest that not only might you want to provide ways for fans to interact with the music and the artists, you may want to provide ways for the audiences to feel creative themselves.
Now I want to go into the subject even deeper because while these ideas have been an on-going discussion within some circles, they haven't filtered out to all who potentially might be affected. There are two different aspects to the topic. One is "everyone is an artist," which involves providing tools to enable creativity. The other is participatory art, which has traditionally involved a high level of social interaction. In this particular blog post, I'll focus more participatory art.
It's not a new concept. People have been talking about it for quite some time, particularly as a counter to the idea that art is to be created by a professional elite.
This paper by G.S. Evans explores the concept in depth and begins with the idea that an artistic elite has not been the norm over the course human evolution.
This alienation from art is a relatively recent phenomenon. As we shall see, the making of art was a central part of people's lives for most of human history--that is, until the relatively recent advent of a capitalist, commodity-based culture in Europe and North America in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. At that time the emphasis in art shifted from participants, who could satisfy their own artistic needs, to specialists, who demanded a paying, non-participating audience to buy their 'products'. Essentially, the art-commodity came to replace participatory-art in most people's lives, and art increasingly became a source of alienation. ...
We live in a society where art is primarily a commodity, something people buy instead of make. Consequently, very few people are actively involved in making art. Because of this general lack of participation, many find it difficult to believe that societies have existed in which literally everybody sang, danced and made their own crafts, all on a daily basis.
Evans extensively covers the history of the arts and how societal and economic conditions transformed them from something everyone did to something mostly done by professionals. There is far too much in the paper to quote, but this is particularly relevant in light of the direct-to-fan discussions dominating music right now.
A radical monopoly [as distinguished from a commercial monopoly] occurs when pre-recorded music as a product comes to replace the making of music in society; in other words, people stop making music themselves and start buying pre-recorded music instead. A further aspect of a radical monopoly is that it becomes an entrenched and structural part of society. People who only listen to music and do not make it for themselves, for example, will normally put on pre- recorded music, no matter what the situation, rather than make their own. This is partially because of conditioned habit, but also because they will no longer be capable of making music among themselves. In addition, the radical monopoly will set up modes of performance that are exclusive to it and will push more personal modes out of style, i.e., make people like or relate to them less and less. "ART ALIENATED: An Essay on the Decline of Participatory-Art."
The idea that "everyone is an artist" has been something of a radical approach during the 20th century. There are political and economic ramifications in giving more people control over their arts experiences. Rather than excluding people for lack of talent/experience/resources, they are included as part of a community. In a paper discussing arts participation among Bay Area immigrant communities, Pia Moriarty explains the dynamics of participatory arts using a church choir model. It has considerable relevance to music because (1) church is THE live music experience for many people and (2) she points out how participatory music strengthens those community bonds. Imagine if secular musicians incorporated some of the same techniques.
Most church choirs are composed of volunteers from the congregation. This is key: the singers are already members and have entry and identity in the larger life-world. Their singing is an expression and deepening of a shared cultural goal, to pray together. To that end they are given a lot of support: physical space, a defined role in the rituals, and perhaps even microphones, songbooks, and instruments. The cultural life of the worshipping community moves forward together, and it carries the singers with it as full members. The line between audience and artistic actors is blurred, overlapping, and permeable; this is typical in participatory arts. The choir practices; it rehearses, but more importantly it engages socially as practicing singers. People learn as they go, but they are already within a living social context....
With our church choir, “audience development” means that we all learn to sing better together. The community that invites us to develop artistically is the same community that provides entry, actively recruiting us as members in a diversified web of reciprocal relationships. ...
Participatory art’s membership approach shortens the distance between “who pays” and “who plays,” and so it can develop past the self-limitations of exclusively patronage or sponsorship models. ...
At a time when non-profit arts organizations are particularly vulnerable to the economy’s protracted woes, the participatory model of “informal,” “folk,” “amateur,” or “unincorporated” artistic production is vibrant and resilient. Participatory arts offer a working alternative for non-profits that will always struggle to survive when they are forced to compete on the terms of a commercial arts model. "Participatory Arts: The Stranger Brings a Gift."
What is bringing participatory art back so prominently now is the connectivity that the Internet facilitates.
The internet with all its manifestations is transforming participatory culture, shifting its orientation from the object to the subject and more recently from subject to data. Ideas are no longer collated in sections or categories but tags. The archive has transformed into a ‘cloud’. Participatory dependent internet art is expanding exponentially. Server-side programming enables a cross-cultural, cross-language, cross-border collaboration where the ‘location’ of the artwork is accessible on demand. The reproducible copy of internet based work is one and the same as the original, albeit perhaps, as only a fragment of the dynamic whole. "Thoughts on Participatory Art," by Yiannis Colakides & Helene Black, NeMe, 6/26/09.
Caterina Fake, co-founder of Flickr and Hunch, says:
Systems such as Wikipedia, Flickr, Delicious, Facebook, Twitter, Hunch and various parts of the open source movement are based around small contributory systems, bodies of work in which there are incremental improvements by multiple contributors, or exposing small actions that would be insignificant in isolation, but are meaningful in the aggregate. These types of software and platforms are specifically designed for conversation and contribution. That is the point. There is no final product such as a book, movie, song or album. "Participatory media and why I love it (and must defend it),"Caterina.net, 1/19/10.
A number of people make the distinction between interactivity and participation. This distinction is also very relevant as musicians hope to engage fans and audiences. Some websites deliver interactivity to fans, but don't include the more creative, more social aspects of participatory art.
At this stage, I also find it important to differentiate between participatory art practices and the much broader term "interaction," wherein the relations established between the members of the audience or between them and the art objects are much more passive and formal (usually directed by certain formal instructions, given by the artists, that are to be followed during the exhibitions).
... I want to reflect particularly on the most recent shift of the artists’ focus: from dealing with objects and installations towards dealing with subjects and enabling their participation in art activities." "Participatory Art," Springerin, 2/2006
The author, Suzana Milevska, goes on to cite the five levels of art participation suggested by Alan Brown.
Inventive Arts Participation engages the mind, body and spirit in an act of artistic creation that is unique and idiosyncratic, regardless of skill level.
Interpretive Arts Participation is a creative act of self-expression that brings alive and adds value to pre-existing works of art, either individually or collaboratively.
Curatorial Arts Participation is the creative act of purposefully selecting, organizing and collecting art to the satisfaction of one’s own artistic sensibility.
Observational Arts Participation encompasses arts experiences that you select or consent to, motivated by some expectation of value.
Ambient Arts Participation involves experiencing art, consciously or unconsciously, that you did not select. "The Five Modes of Arts Participation,"The Artful Manager, 9/14/05.
In a previous blog post, "Elements of Music Participation," I explored some ways to create music projects which facilitate participation by a wide variety of people with different skill sets. Henry Jenkins, one of the most important voices writing about the future of media and entertainment, gives his definition of participatory culture.
For the moment, let's define participatory culture as one: 1. With relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement 2. With strong support for creating and sharing one's creations with others 3. With some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices 4. Where members believe that their contributions matter 5. Where members feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the least they care what other people think about what they have created).
Jenkins also goes on to make a distinction between interactivity and participatory culture.
Interactivity is a property of the technology, while participation is a property of culture. Participatory culture is emerging as the culture absorbs and responds to the explosion of new media technologies that make it possible for average consumers to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media content in powerful new ways. A focus on expanding access to new technologies carries us only so far if we do not also foster the skills and cultural knowledge necessary to deploy those tools toward our own ends.
Another resource on the topic of participatory art can be found here: "Participation & Participatory Platforms." This article mentions the origin of "happenings" which became popular in the 1960s. Flash mobs and Burning Man could be considered descendants of "happenings." Here's a more recent example of a participatory Burning Man-like event.
A caravan of 19 such trucks were arranged inside a vast indoor garage on the waterfront of a desolate Brooklyn neighborhood. Nothing was for sale, and you needed to bring your own food & beverages.
The key here is that the event was participatory, meaning you didn’t go simply to passively view art, you were invited to experience it.
Yet, what made this particular event so fascinating was the many inventive ways each participant completely transformed their truck from something empty and uninspiring into great fun. All I could think was how the next time I see a box truck out on the street, it might be one used here. "Lost Horizon Night Market: Party in a Box Truck,"reactions, 1/17/10.
For all my discussions on participatory art and audience participation, I'm not saying that it is necessarily preferable to take down the walls between artists and fans. There are especially talented individuals who I would like to see have enough financial support in some fashion to be able to devote as much time to their creativity as possible.
Rather, what I am trying to do is to prepare the music world for what I see happening anyway. The concept of a passive fan, who happily pays money to buy whatever the musician puts out, be that music, performance, art object, or personal interaction, seems to be changing. When fans start getting more attention for themselves by what they are personally doing rather than what they are buying or who they are associating with, they tend to find their own self-expression and creativity preferable to what they can purchase from someone else.
There can still be a role for the artist in all of this, but it often involves having the artist give up some degree of ownership of the creativity. Here's one artist's take.
Patricia Reed: I’m also interested in the ways in which such participatory modes of working subvert the branding strategies of institutions by way of clearly identifiable authors and names. ... In participatory practice, it is perhaps the artist who initiates something in the form of an object, idea, interaction, etc., but unleashes it to the influence of the many for further manipulation, engagement, etc. So the artist is the one who “proposes” or instigates certain processes but the authorship is ultimately obscured—it occupies this important space of the “co-,” where a work is partially made with and not by. ...
Perhaps it’s useful to look at the distinctions in the notion of authorship involved in participatory practice that expands this “artist-as-proposer” we’re discussing. To propose or initiate something is vastly different than to author something. It’s the first step in a process—obviously an important step, but one in a potentially long road. It’s the launching of an idea—and a “hosting” of that idea throughout a process. Crucial, however, to this notion of “hosting” is equally the capacity to “un-host”—for a conventional host assumes situational authority. What I mean by “un-hosting” is not to relinquish authority completely within a group dynamic, but to view the process as a partiality—that is, both being and not being a “host” simultaneously. Throughout the process of un-hosting a certain degree of control (not all) is dispersed and it is precisely that dispersion of “control” that blurs conventional notions of authorship. "What Is a Participatory Practice?"Fillip 8, Fall 2008.
Game developers and other designers of multimedia think like this because user engagement is their goal.
For the artist, this means giving up traditional notions of authorial control. “I’m a writer, but I’ve discovered that sometimes writing has to take a backseat to gameplay to ensure people have the most fun,” comments David Varela, who helped create the successful alternate reality game Xi, designed to promote Sony’s PlayStation Home. ...
Nina Simon makes a particularly good distinction between inviting the public to design a project and designing a project that invites their participation.
Which of these descriptions exemplifies participatory museum practice?
1. Museum invites community members to participate in the development and creation of an exhibit. The exhibit opens. It looks like a traditional exhibit. 2. Museum staff create an exhibit by a traditional internal design process, but the exhibit, once open, invites visitors to contribute their own stories and participation. The exhibit is dynamic and changes somewhat in response to visitors' actions.
The answer (for me) is both. But the difference between the two examples teases out a problem in differentiating "participatory design" from "design for participation." In the first case, you are making the design process participatory. In the second, you make the product participatory. "Participatory Design Vs. Design for Participation: Exploring the Difference,"Museum 2.0, 4/7/09.
Simon's distinction gets at the heart of what is happening in music among those hoping to engage their fans. Some are letting the fans create the product, while others are letting them participate in something that has already been at least partially developed.
The reason I have been exploring this to such a degree is that I feel if popular music doesn't at least participate in this conversation, it's going to be outside the wider artist community. Certainly many artists in other fields are talking about ways to generate income for themselves, so I'm not suggesting that music is unique in its discussion of developing careers that involve sales. But I'd like to see more conceptualization about the future of music beyond what is currently being discussed at music conferences and online. The 1,000 True Fans and Tribes models, where the artist is the core surrounded by adoring fans, may not remain the norm. As Evans points out:
For the most successful of the art-specialists this hero worship has made it possible to sell millions of dollars worth of their art-commodities on name power alone, and gained them large and loyal followings that would do a head-of-state or television evangelist proud.
... the prevailing belief is that legitimate art is produced solely by art-specialists and anybody else's efforts are secondary at best. This belief becomes, then, an essentially self-perpetuating definition of art, namely that art is what art-specialists produce.
The underlying assumption is that this vast number of artistic non-participants will have their artistic needs met, not by actually making art themselves, but rather by consuming the products of the art-specialists. ...
All of this is the logical result of a commodity culture. If participatory art was a part of our everyday lives, large numbers of people would be actively involved in the making of art. This, however, would severely limit the potential sales of art-commodities and the celebrity status of the specialist. "ART ALIENATED: An Essay on the Decline of Participatory-Art."
Here's a video of Henry Jenkins talking about participatory culture and how most creators do it to share rather than as a way to make money.
UPDATE 9/10/10 Here you can find a long discussion about whether or not DJs and mash-up producers are artists.
Some DJs rebel actively against legal and commercial institutions, while others simply avoid them as a matter of course; in both cases, these factors have helped to break down the artificial distinction between artists and audience. As UK-based musician Matt Wand told me: “I can’t draw the line, I definitely don’t draw the line – he’s artist, she’s audience – I can’t do that at all." "Aram Sinnreich: ‘Mashed Up: Music, Technology, and the Rise of Configurable Culture’ - Book Excerpt," Truthdig, 8/27/10.
Because I believe the distinction between artists and fans is dissolving, I've been covering the topic quite a bit -- in blog-sized bits.
I thought that today I would write about audience participation, which is one manifestation of this phenomenon. If you read no further, at least check out the Bobby McFerrin video at the bottom of the page. It has been making the rounds, so perhaps you have already seen it. But if not, it's worth a look.
Audience participation is certainly not a new concept, but it's useful to look at how it has evolved with technology. In his essay, Tom Ewing discusses popular British music in the late 1880s.
... pre-amplification: singers lacked the basic advantage of volume we audiences habitually cede to them now. So their music had to be a participatory one. You fought for and held the attention of a crowd on your verses, and the reward for their relative silence was to sing along on the chorus. And if you weren't up to snuff your verses would drown in a sump of backchat, shouting, fights and shrieks and rival tunes. Sing-alongs and audience participation were the heart of music hall ...
What happened to that energy? Music hall began its slow decline in the 1920s, battered by cinema and radio, shoring up flagging audiences with stripper acts that unraveled the threadbare respectability promoters had cultivated. Mass singing survived on football terraces and in pubs, though, and there was still enough pull in the idea of giving a crowd voice for the biggest band in the world to worry at it continually in the mid-60s. ... "Poptimist #1,"Pitchfork, 2/20/07.
He goes on to say that the Beatles were influenced by that tradition.
"Yellow Submarine" isn't a music hall song, but it revives the hall ideal of audience participation. The Beatles' vision of the singalong was a communal release of positive, inclusive bonhomie; an extension and gentling of music hall's rowdy vigour. They kept coming back to the idea of involving and encouraging the audience. "The singer's gonna sing a song, and he wants you all to sing along"; "All Together Now"; and at last the most explicit (and weakest) attempt of all-- "All You Need Is Love".
... It goes back to that long-ago contract between performer and audience: the sense that a singer is there at a crowd's indulgence, and that his listeners have their own, highly vocal, role to play. Participatory populism, if you like, but with a sense of risk. There was always the real possibility that the singer would be sidelined by the audience noise, turned into an irrelevance-- or in the "War Song"'s case, would become the focal point for demotic currents they might not safely ride.
Around the time of the Beatles, music innovator John Cage wanted to change the rigid performer/audience relationship that had become the norm, especially in classical music.
One of the first artists to articulate a radically new aesthetic was John Cage. In his seminal early books, Silence (1961) and A Year for Monday (1968), Cage wrote eloquently (if at times obliquely) about a larger shift in the relationship between performer and listener. Music, he argued, could no longer be seen as something separate and detached from its listeners and from its context. Rather, creating music was a process that was initiated by the composer or performer, but completed by the audience. The listeners' experience of the work was essential to the music itself. "A Composer's Century,"Andante, July 2002.
More recently, we have newer forms of music which incorporate audience participation.
I care about jazz way more than I care about European classical, and I lately care more about hip-hop than jazz. For me, it’s a simple matter of audience participation. In classical music, the audience doesn’t even get to applaud at the end of a movement. In jazz, there’s more interaction, but the audience is still mostly a passive recipient of information from the band. Hip-hop is all about group participation. I’m not talking about big stadium shows or TV here; I mean hip-hop as practiced on streetcorners and in clubs, where the mic gets passed around the circle and anyone who has the nerve takes a turn rhyming. I think the hip-hop cypher is as close as Americans get to the group improvisation of the stone age campfire. "Twitter, jazz and moving music forward into the stone age,"Ethan Hein's Blog, 2/13/09.
I've just quoted three thoughtful essays on the state of music over the past 150 years. But what's intriguing to me are the number of articles that give tips to working musicians and DJs on how to get their audiences involved. Rather than essays, these sites offer practical advice. This is the part of the music business that most music futurists don't pay much attention to, but it's what a musical experience is all about for many people. The average person with a couple of kids probably isn't going to many (if any) rock clubs or big arena shows, but maybe he/she is catching a DJ at a wedding or hearing a local band at a free outdoor community concert. It's real life music.
If you click on those lists, you'll see a number of songs that most of us know. That's one advantage of having mass media. People grow up hearing the same songs.
However that could change as music audiences split off into smaller niches. If we run out of universally-known songs, then artists/bands will have to depend on having a core group of fans who know the songs. Or who can learn new material on the spot. Some audience participation could evolve beyond playing popular cover songs.
To give you some idea of where band-led audience participation is headed, here's a VERY LONG AND IMPRESSIVE LIST of concerts where audience participation has been used. The list has been compiled on TV Tropes, a wiki where people contribute tips/ideas for a variety of creative media.
"Sing-A-Long Sound of Music" first emerged at the 1988 London Gay and Lesbian Film festival after an event organizer heard that staff at a retirement home in the Scottish town of Inverness had distributed song sheets during a video showing of "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers". The film festival's screening of "Sound of Music" and the sing-along proved to be unexpectedly successful, and it attracted the attention of theater producer David Johnson, who later joined forces with Ben Freedman of the Prince Charles Cinema to promote the project.
Later it developed into the "Sing-A-Long Sound of Music", the audience-participation phenomenon. Fans belt out "Do-Re-Mi" while dressed as Julie Andrews, or role play as a few of their favorite things.
Another form of musical audience participation involves having the audience create the music, which is more engaging than just singing along. This is being done most often with experimental music and with interactive computer-based music. (I will be mentioning some examples in my next blog post.) But there are also concerts based on very traditional music, often using drums or other forms of percussion. Here are two examples:
Manuel, the founder and director of Sewa Beats, a company based in the Vaud town of Morges, is organizing a concert at the Batiment des Forces Motrices to feature drummers from West Africa, 15 musicians from the Orchestre Symphonique Lyonnais and a unique form of audience participation.
“What makes the concert completely unique is that we are going to give everyone in the audience drums,” he told Swisster in a telephone interview from London.
People attending the November 6 event will be invited to beat out rhythms, under Manuel’s direction, to accompany the professional musicians in what he told Swisster is a “completely unique” programme. "Audience participation drums to a different beat,"Swisster, 10/21/09.
The symphony consists of 19 separate musical lines requiring repeated drumming rhythms of 12 beats, augmented by occasional sung chants. With hundreds of invited drummers pounding away, you'd think El-Dabh would be worried about keeping things together. He's not.
"I just need the total sound. In Cleveland, I got that vibration whether they were on the beat together or not. Besides, there's a section where the chaos is intentional." "1,000 drums, one transcendent vibe,"The Rocky Mountain News, 8/21/08.
There are also a number of theater productions that involve audiences to one degree or another. Some of the productions are very avant-garde or experimental, and others play to popular culture. Here's one overview.
I have three reasons for wanting to explore fan involvement in depth:
1. As new technology allows them to do more media creation themselves, and as they come to expect more interactivity, fans are becoming more than just passive music consumers.
2. A lot of the new music business models are still based on the idea that music creators will sell to, and be supported by, fans rather than the idea that everyone may become a music creator/producer/promoter at some level.
3. Many musicians continue to assume that if they are good, their fans will sit and listen. These musicians are not preparing for a more interactive relationship.
Here's one musician's experience adjusting to this new dynamic, in this case having people in the audience tweeting while the band was playing.
When I saw the first negative comment I had the obvious sinking emotional reaction. This was a pretty basic comment that was really the first piece of harsh criticism we had received – and in writing – and in front of an audience of the three hundred people – and in front of all the tens of thousands of people watching on line. Oh yeah, receiving written criticism about your performance while in the middle of that very same performance is a first and weird too. So, when I saw the line “This band Sux!” it kind of took the wind out of my sails a bit.
About thirty seconds later though I was excited and amused when I had a flash of insight. We had suddenly been thrust to the level where people with no personal connection to us were moved to appreciate, judge, talk about, defend, protect, haze, fall in love with, and diss . . . It felt suddenly like an enormous step in the right direction. I started to beam. And people were rallying to say great things about us too. No matter what it just started to make me happy. "MC Hammer and Shorty Awards," tinpanbluesband.com, 2/12/09.
I'll wrap up this blog entry with two videos.
The flash mob has become one manifestation of audience participation. Not only does it involve a group of people performing at the event, if a tape of the event ends up on YouTube, then potentially millions of people become involved by forwarding the link to people they know.
For the beginning of Oprah's 24th season, her producers created an event that was the biggest single-city flash mob in history. On Facebook and Twitter they solicited Oprah fans who loved to dance. Eight hundred fans in Chicago volunteered. The day before the show, twenty professional dancers taught them the routine. And then the day of the show, those 800 taught 20,000 other people who showed up. In this clip, you can view not only the dance, but also some of that background preparation.
Finally, watch this Bobby McFerrin video. The point he is making isn't about audience participation per se, but it's a wonderful example of how effectively you can get people to join in.
In my last blog post, "Involving Music Fans at Many Levels," I made a list of ways fans can get involved with an artist/band and the music. I invited people to add to the list if I had forgotten anything.
Someone suggested "groupies" so I added it to the list. I think he was using the term as it is commonly associated in music: women who sleep with rock stars as their own claim to fame. But people also use the term "groupie" to describe fans who slavishly seek out attention from their favorite celebrities.
I had forgotten about groupies, but when he suggested it, I remembered when I personally started to use it as a pejorative term. That was when I was spending hours each day at what was then the top figure skating rink in the world. A number of Olympic-level athletes trained there. The rink community was made up of skaters, their parents (I was one of those), coaches, and the staffers who worked there. Anyone else who showed up on a regular basis was viewed with some suspicion. It was a public building so anyone could walk in, but the idea that people would spend their free time there when they didn't need to be there struck us as weird. Didn't they have lives they should be tending to? So in our minds either you had a purpose to be around skating that much or you were a groupie. And being a groupie wasn't good.
The term has also been used in skating to describe certain event-going fans. Here's a quote from a 1996 newspaper article.
Ask Tom Collins, owner of the Tour of World Figure Skating Champions, one of the best-known tours on the skating circuit.
No matter what city his cast of about 30 prominent, award-winning skaters perform in, there will be a core group of regulars filling rink-side seats reserved months in advance.
"Almost like a rock star having a following, we have these skating groupies ... (who) see anywhere from six to 20 shows per year," Collins said.
Until about ten years ago, figure skating was a relatively genteel sport, free of the fanaticism that has led to injuries and deaths in soccer melees and similar incidents in other sports. Most people who followed the sport or came to competitions were true fans of the sport, rather than groupies. "Fans or Fanatics: How a Few Bad Apples are Ruining Figure Skating,"Golden Skate, 3/25/02.
All professional sports have their share of groupies. For example:
When hockey players first start off in the NHL they're pulled in many different directions since they're making all this money and have no idea that the kind of friends they're dealing with are people that are not the kind of people you want around. This goes into the kind of women who end up trapping a lot of hockey players and many of them are addressed as "Puck Bunnies" these are what you call hockey's term for groupies. Many pro athletes are the prime target of these kinds of females who are more interested in them for the financial and sexual aspect. Many of the athletes who are married or dating are with women who started off as groupies. Most of them are young girls 18-25 and most of them are not really educated because women who are educated would not settle for the role of a side dish. "Hockey Players And The Groupies Who Chase Them,"Article Click, 4/1/06.
Within sports there is also a male version of a groupie (albeit, without the sex involved) called a "jock sniffer."
For a sportswriter, being called a jock sniffer is the worst thing that can happen, worse even than finding out you have to pay for the press box buffet. Being a jock sniffer means you're hanging around the athletes just for the thrill of being in their company, and that you'd never write anything negative, even if it was warranted. No one, not even reporters who ignore "no cheering in the press box" warnings, would call him- or herself a jock sniffer. Sportswriters, in fact, rarely use the term on their colleagues anymore, but that's because they've broken down jock sniffing into categories. The reporter with a slavish devotion to the team on his beat is a "homer." The reporter with a slavish devotion to a particular player would be that player's "bobo," "caddie" or "boy." "Kick Out the Sports!" Flak Magazine, 6/16/03.
Although no one wants to be labeled a jock sniffer or the equivalent, some people come to their defense and say these guys are just responding to appropriate status cues:
So instead of admitting -- outside of their fantasy life -- to their desire/dream of meeting with and getting connected to a Bon Jovi, Tiger Woods, or Brad Pitt, they approach the object of their adulation through, for example, the rite of the autograph request (always for someone else, of course) or engineer the desired association through non-fawning conventional means: practical doctor-dentist-financial advisor, career consultant relationships. "Guitars, Gonads, and Groupies Are Wild,"Arts & Opinion, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2003.
Rock music is where groupies are most commonly associated, and some have become minor celebrities for the practice.
"A fan is very content to stay home and listen to the music, but the groupie wants to meet them," said Pamela Des Barres, the ultimate groupie who partied with everyone from the Doors to the Who to the Rolling Stones, and whose 1987 autobiography is called "I'm With the Band." "'Almost Famous' to 'Rock of Love': Groupies Then and Now,"ABC News, 8/14/09.
Modern groupies want their 15-minute share of fame, asserting themselves through tawdry memoirs and talk show gigs. They're passing along trivia about penis size, championing songs written in their honor, and demanding a place in show-biz history. "Groupies,"SF Weekly, 7/25/07.
[On becoming plaster casters.] Initially it was to get laid because we were shy. And then when we finally got around to learning how to do it, it kind of backfired for me in the sex department, because I wound up being the mold mixer, and I hardly got laid as a result! First it was a shtick to get laid, and then as it progressed, I got this collector's impulse to collect more and more. And then people told me it was art, and it is art in the school of Andy Warhol, art repetition. "Cynthia Plaster Caster: Art with staying power,"Salon, 7/12/00.
A subset of groupies had a degree of status.
Such crass approaches are unnecessary for the grandes dames of groupie society, the Super Groupies. Beautiful, usually intelligent, often well-heeled, they are welcome—in fact, sought-after—company. "Manners And Morals: The Groupies,"Time, 2/28/69.
But most did not.
Which we actually used to look upon as, uh, gas stations.... "Uh, we're in Cincinnati, so...we need to fill 'er up a little." And the other thing about groupies, it wasn't just boinky-boinky. They used to take care of you. They used to rub Vicks on your chest if you had a cold. Sometimes you'd never do anything. Sometimes they were just...nasty. [laughs] Get my drift? [laughs]...I don't miss them. "Keith Richards On Groupies, Mick Jagger And Curing Himself Of Hep C,"Huffington Post, 3/28/08.
This sums it up:
We mock and deride them, dismiss them as tramps and tarts, in order to disassociate ourselves from the ethos that compels them to give themselves away to total strangers. Groupies, as they are eponymously known, are chicks that follow, fawn over and offer themselves to musicians performing in mostly rock and pop groups. "Guitars, Gonads, and Groupies Are Wild,"Arts & Opinion, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2003.
So, in review, there are two definitions of groupies.
1. Women who sleep with musicians/athletes as their claim to fame.
2. Fans whose primary leisure-time activity is following a specific musician/athlete to as many events as possible. In most cases these are harmless people who just enjoy watching performances rather than obsessed fans who qualify as stalkers.
What ties the two categories together is that (1) they are fans and (2) they are viewed with some distain.
Based on some conversations I have had, athletes/musicians/celebrities tend to have an ambivalent view of those they think of as groupies. On the plus side, they view having groupies as an indication that someone admires them; on the minus side, they would prefer to hang out with their peers (which the groupies, by definition, are not). Groupies are people whose claim to fame is that they hang out with celebrities, not that they have done anything noteworthy themselves. Therefore they aren't perceived by celebrities as being very interesting. Groupies aren't doing enough in their own lives to need to be anywhere but hanging out with the celebrities. They don't have any important meetings to go to. Or any important parties to be at. The only people who admire groupies are those who are doing even less with their lives.
Groupies aren't even part of the entourage, which is made up of people who, while not necessarily famous themselves, have at least earned their access legitimately, either because they work for the celebrity, are long-time friends, or are relatives.
Celebrities also can feel uncomfortable with groupies because some have had bad encounters with obsessed fans.
Stars have to try to balance the notion of staying relevant and getting press with releasing too much personal information, [fame psychology expert James] Houran said.
"The more a celebrity discloses about themselves, the more they make a fan think they know them in a way that they really don't," Houran said. "Could you become a celebrity stalker?" CNN, 11/05/09.
Celebrities are always trying to build walls around themselves, literally and figuratively, and those walls cost money.
This week, rapper 50 Cent, whose real name is Curtis Jackson, admitted that he spends $20,000 a week on security at his Farmington, Connecticut, mansion.
"My home is surrounded by cameras. I need surveillance not only to look out for me but also to protect me. You get all these crazy lawsuits, and I need cameras to check on things," the 33-year-old told the entertainment news service WEN. "Celebs shell out big bucks for security,"CNN, 11/06/09.
But for the most part, groupies aren't viewed as dangerous, and depending on the whim of the celebrity, are sometimes encouraged to hang around, and sometimes not. That's the dilemma. Groupies are kind of appreciated, but not really.
What made me think they are worth writing about is that musicians are currently being told to actively court fans, in ways far more involved than in the past. Internet interactivity is allowing musicians to connect more directly with fans. Many social media advocates feel this is good (e.g., Tribes, 1,000 True Fans).
Taking it a step further, they are saying that musicians and other celebrities should consider selling access as part of a tiered direct-to-fan offering.
... being able to talk to them, or be with them, or have events that they're involved in. Say you really like a band and you sign up for a subscription. From that you get early access to tickets to concerts, you can get the best seat, you can get backstage passes. Interview: Mike Masnick, Techdirt's Founder,"The Guardian, 1/11/07.
But others are starting to write about the tradeoffs.
In the age of the super-fan, the musician is charged with conveying the idea that his or her music is worth $100 a year of various and sundry purchases, some or even most of which may not involve actual music. I am not saying that this can't be done, I'm only pointing out that this is first of all a less modest goal than musicians of the past were charged with and second of all requires a different approach to a music-making life.
Some 21st-century musicians appear to be well-suited to this new mode of being. It requires an unmitigated willingness and ability to be a public person in a much different way than is involved when simply singing songs on a stage. Artists for whom such conduct feels natural may not find it any particular kind of burden. "Farewell to the casual music fan,"Fingertips, 11/9/09.
Amanda Palmer is someone who doesn't have a problem with it.
a few months ago i was traveling around impulsively after a long tour, taking off-time and visiting friends and family in various cities and discovering the then-newfound magical powers of twitter. i used these magical powers to put together flash-mob-style donation-shows on beaches and in parks, to find last-minute practice pianos, to find cafe/yoga/wireless recommendations, to find crash spaces for me & my assistant, even to twitter for rides to and from the airport from random fans (twitchhiking!). why the hell not?. call me crazy. but i like these people and trust them enough to do that....
since the birth of the dresden dolls in 2000, i have pretty much been on tour and i have, with very few exceptions due to sickness or mad schedules, signed and hung out with my fans after almost every single show. if i had to guess how people i have signed for, hugged or connected with…..it’s probably in the hundreds of thousands of people. (literally). some nights brian (the dolls’ drummer) and i would sign for over a thousand people, for 3-4 hours. we would take a lot of time to really meet people, talk to them, hear their stories, connect with them. in a lot of cases, stay in touch with them. and now i know my fans. ...
please understand: i don’t preach this from a high horse, i say this so you (especially who don’t KNOW me) understand that the people i am reaching out to…these people KNOW ME. a lot of them have MET me. a lot of them have FED me, HOUSED me, helped me carry heavy amps and gear up stairs, promoted my shows in their towns. to this day, i rely on them for TONS of help. and this is a huge part of why i feel confident that i won’t look like too much of an asshole when i reach out to my fanbase for money. even those who haven’t helped me directly follow the story, they see how my life functions and they offer what they can. they’re part of this ride, part of my struggle to live this weird life with it’s many travels and ups and downs. for the most part, they trust me. and i trust them. time and attention has made that possible. "Virtual Crowdsurfing,"Amanda Palmer blog, 10/13/09.
A few, like Palmer, have the personality to give back to their fans and not to mock them for being fans. But not everyone can do it.
Music fans have set different expectations for artists and insist that they are met. While not everyone has interest in messaging their favorite artist, those that do, anticipate a reply back. "The Elsewhere Musician: Making Connections in a Fragmented World,"hypebot, 11/12/09.
The HBO comedy series Flight of the Conchords has captured the essence of the hardcore music fan very well with the character Mel. Music needs her, but doesn't quite know what to do with her.
UPDATE 5/23/10 One person's experience having paid for a $1100 VIP ticket for a Bon Jovi concert.
So I fly in, get to the arena for my VIP treatment and for the next few hours, was treated like shit by everyone from arena staff to band staff to Jon Bon Jovi’s brother. Someone (a heavier girl) wanted a picture with Matt BJ…and he rolled his eyes in a manner that was disgusting. A friend overheard one of the crew guys referring to the fan club as the “fat club”…out loud, in front of people! It was like scheduling a meeting with Michael Corleone and getting Fredo instead.
... I take my seat and the guy next 2 me asks what I paid, I tell him and he begins to laugh out loud. He goes on to tell me that he paid nothing, was given free tickets by the management team and that people like me pay for his tickets. He had been drinking but I couldn’t stop listening. He went on and on and told me that the band makes all their money from people like me who are dumb and foolish enough to spend the money (which was confirmed by the NYT article). "E-Mail Of The Day,"Lefsetz Letter, 5/23/10.
While some of the suggested uses for the site do seem pretty practical (having someone show you around town or teach you a skill), many of them seem a bit like a crutch. Has social networking changed real-life interaction to the point where we need to pay someone to be a real-time friend? "Stuff We Didn’t Know About Until Today: You Can Rent A Friend," TIME NewsFeed, 7/6/10.
Read the comments. Some of them express the same distain that people feel for groupies.
UPDATE 10/20/10 Here's a column written by a singer/songwriter, John Roderick, acknowledging how important superfans are in launching bands and how they inevitably get pushed aside when the musicians become more popular and hence busier.
So this letter from the superfan girl affected me. She felt that her love, to say nothing of all the hard work she did promoting the band, was going unappreciated. Suddenly the backstage was crammed with newcomers, and the band was too young even to look at her with knowing, apologetic eyes. But I feel for the band too: They're swamped, barely keeping their heads above water. They're at the start of their journey, and already the people who loved them first are pining for a simpler time. "Superfans: They Love You First. They Book You Shows. It Gets Complicated," Seattle Weekly, 10/19/10.
UPDATE 11/11/10 Part of an interview with Paige X. Cho, Administration and Promotions Manager for digital distributor Valleyarm and author of the Melbourne music blog Paper-Deer.
The term "superfan" reminds me of Mel from Flight of the Conchords - sometimes a little creepy, borderline stalker behavior but all done with good intentions. Like John Roderick writes, these are the obsessive fans that have a lot invested in bands and feel that their over-the-top and unsolicited help means that they should be friends with the band and get thanked on stage or first dibs on anything. I've even known a superfan who weirdly knew the shampoo her favorite singer used!
The problem with these fans is they aren't happy with just getting newsletters or buying autographed merch. They feel they deserve more, and the problem is that these fans get offended very easily. If you walk by them outside a venue without hearing them go "hi" or you don't personally reply to their emails, they seem to get upset and could possibly "turn" against you.
I suppose one solution that might appease some (but not all) is to set up a street team and make your biggest superfan the director of the street team. Not only are they likely to do a damn fine job for free, it's a good way to turn their obsession into something manageable. "Bands As A Business: Invest Money In Marketing,"hypebot, 11/11/10.
Many in the music industry have woken up to the fact that relationships with fans are important. Social media, direct-to-fan sales, and fan management are concepts being discussed online and at conferences.
I believe that if we don't take the concept even further, the music industry will continue to be a trend follower rather than a trend setter. Thinking of fans as consumers and artists as creators seems to be the same old model, now simply spread across smaller and smaller niches.
Based on what I am seeing, both at shows and in the way fans are using technology, I anticipate more of a movement toward involving fans at all levels of music. Or, let me put it this way, if you don't involve them, they will either find ways to insert themselves anyway, or they will go elsewhere.
Many new music business models recognize that there are various levels of fandom. Here is one example: The Long Tail Of Fans
But I think there are even more ways for fans to interact with music. And each stage on the continuum presents ways to engage fans (i.e., to capitalize on their interests and give them more ways to express themselves and find fulfillment in the process). Not everyone wants to invest much time or effort into music, but I think everyone wants to feel emotionally rewarded by the process, whether they put in a great deal of time/effort or very little.
Here's the list of levels of involvement that I came up with. I tried to put them in order from what I think might be the least amount of time and commitment to what might involve the most time/commitment. But this can vary from person to person depending on skill sets. For some, making a video for/about the band would take more time than learning to play a song on the guitar. For others, it might be the reverse. So my list isn't supposed to be a fixed progression of involvement levels. In fact, a better guide might be how many hours a fan is devoting to a band and its music rather than the tasks he/she is performing. For example, someone who spends hours learning to play an instrument in order to emulate an artist or band may have far more emotional involvement than a wealthy sponsor who donates a significant amount of money.
If I have left out any, feel free to suggest them and I will incorporate them in the list (and credit you, as I go).
Be exposed to music in some fashion (e.g., radio, TV, blogs, Pandora, friend suggestions/playlists)
NOTE: My list started with "listen to music" on the assumption that the first step anyone takes in a relationship with an artist/band is to hear the music. But Tom Higley (read more about our discussion below) pointed out that listening can come with a context. So there are actually multiple levels of music exposure/discovery/receptiveness. You can stumble upon music, have it recommended to you, or seek it out.
Play with an application on the artist/band website (e.g., augmented reality)
Buy the music
Sign up for a mailing list
Read the artist/band blog on a regular basis (suggested by kahnzo)
Subscribe to the artist/band's YouTube channel
Comment on the artist/band's webpage/Facebook page/bulletin board/etc.
Promote the artist/band to friends
Sing the artist/band's songs at karaoke
Purchase or create a ringtone of the artist/band's song (from Next Big Sound Blog)
Support a company because it sponsors the band
Buy yourself tickets to shows
Take photos, videos, and/or text at shows to send to friends
Dance/sing at the show
Talk to the band after the show (suggested by kahnzo)
Get the artist to sign a CD
Buy a t-shirt
Wear the t-shirt a lot
Put a widget from the artist/band on your webpage
Take friends to the show
Buy show tickets for friends (suggested by Tom Higley)
Engage in an ongoing online conversation about/with the artist/band
Download an iPhone application for the artist/band
Blog favorably about the music (that might include posting setlists, photos, and reviews)
Record the music at a show
Create a video using the music or in some other fashion related to the artist/band
Create a remix
Choreograph a dance number to the music
Perform the artist/band's music at a talent show
Use the artist/band's music in your wedding
Play a fantasy game with the artist/band on your roster (suggested by ZikPot)
Join something related to the band which requires a monthly or annual payment
Be an extra in the artist/band video (suggested by kahnzo)
Learn to play the songs on an instrument (which would involve more effort than just singing along)
Get to know other fans to the extent that you recognize them at shows and/or stay in touch between shows
Buy tickets to a show on the first day
Join a street team (doing tasks such as postering or handing out flyers)
Help the artist/band by doing something outside of street team work (perhaps pro bono professional services)
Create an artist/band related t-shirt
Collect artist/band-related stuff
Create a fan page for the artist/band
Learn an instrument to play the songs
Befriend the artist/band (i.e., get to know the artist/band to the extent that you socialize beyond music-related events)
Date or get involved with a band member beyond friendship (suggested by Rick -- he actually said "become a groupie," but I'll include dating and marrying in addition to sleeping with)
Contribute money/goods/services to the artist/band or become a sponsor
Travel outside your area to multiple shows
Plan vacations around the artist/band
Hire the artist/band for a private concert
Write songs inspired by the artist/band
Create a video game or characters based on the artist/band (suggested by kahnzo)
Create your own band after being inspired by the artist/band
Join the band itself
Get better/more famous than the original band that inspired you
This list is basically self-motivated. The reward is in developing an interest and then pursuing it. But I had a conversation the other night with Tom Higley, CEO of iggli (a new way to invite friends to ticketed events), who suggested bands or others in the music business could also provide extrinsic motivators to encourage fans to take additional steps. He cited what foursquare is doing. The company allows people to know where their friends are located. But as people frequent certain places, they receive rewards of various kinds (e.g., titles, discounts and freebies offered by those locations). Here's more on the concept: "6 Innovative Ways Businesses are Capitalizing on Foursquare."
Music could offer something similar (e.g., titles and rewards for attending the most shows at a venue, attending the most shows for a particular artist, earning points for purchases, donating time). There can be both a public component and and a rewards component for engaging in certain activities.
I'll be touching all of the above in future blog posts. Suffice it to say for now that selling to fans is no longer enough. They have too many other options to be passive consumers.
As recorded music becomes a promotional tool to sell other music-related stuff, bands are moving into limited edition and collectibles territory. Generally as fans become collectors, they like to communicate and meet up with other collectors.
Although there are groups for vinyl, poster, and music memorabilia collectors, nothing exists on the scale of Comic-Con.
... the term "Comic-Con" doesn't even begin to describe the diversity of SDCCI's [San Diego's Comic-Con International] wall-to-wall programming. Aside from comic books, the convention's schedule includes events devoted to contemporary comic books (and their creators), vintage comic books (and their creators), original artwork (from both categories), science fiction and fantasy literature, animation (both domestic and foreign), genre television shows, pulp magazines, weaponry (both real and faux), genre theatrical (and direct-to-DVD) films, role-playing games, action figures, vintage toys, old time radio shows, video games, glamour art, costumes -- and, oh, I give up (in much the same way I'm now forced to give up my hopes of navigating the con's entire exhibit hall.) Let's just say that, if a topic is considered to be somewhat dispensable and silly in real life, chances are, it's considered to be of primary importance at SDCCI. "The 'Secret Origin' of San Diego's Comic-Con International," Jim Hill Media, 7/7/05.
The original concept behind Comic-Con was to promote comic book art and the professionals who created it rather than to create a merchandising and marketing event.
“I just felt that the cartoonists who entertained the popular masses were not getting their fair share of recognition,” [creator Shel Dorf] said. A convention would celebrate their many contributions.
Dorf, who was 36 then, also remembered what it was like to be a kid burning with a desire to become an artist, and not really knowing how to get there. A convention, he believed, would be a way to let youngsters meet pros, get some advice.
The convention has grown into San Diego's largest [attendance capped at about 125,000]. But it was a tough go in the beginning.
The confab itself was so strapped for cash that each year the artists donated work -- which they dutifully sketched out on easels as a small crowd watched -- that were auctioned to help support the gathering. "The early days of Comic-Con," Variety, 7/11/08.
Comic-Con has always appealed to passionate fans, though who they are has expanded considerably.
"We always knew our audience was limited, but I personally felt it was limited not because only those people were interested," [David Glanzer, the organization's director of marketing and public relations] said. "I always felt that our audience was limited because we didn't inform a wider audience about what it was that we had."
He credits the convention's exponential growth through word of mouth buzz, and noted that most people come to the show more than once in their lives....
A 13-member board of directors, most of whom have been long-time fans of the show and were nominated to join the board, officially runs Comic-Con. The convention's office in La Mesa staffs 16-20 full-time and temporary workers, and about 80 volunteers work on various committees that help organize the show. "Charting Comic-Con's Hulk-like growth," San Diego Source, 4/18/08.
In addition to the San Diego event, there are now others around the country.
Gareb Shamus, CEO and founder of Wizard ... tells Marketing Daily that Comic Con started 40 years ago as small events in San Diego and Chicago. Wizard bought the Chicago show 15 years ago, and has been able to grow that from 5,000 to 70,000 attendees in a four-day event. Now, Wizard runs five of the events that bring in some 250,000 people to Toronto, Philadelphia, Chicago, Anaheim, Calif., and New York.
He says that among 700 vendors, Disney, Lego, Hasbro and Wild Planet will be on hand to show new products. "From the toy perspective, the fourth quarter is especially important," he says. "For companies to display their products to fans -- let them see them in a fun, family, cool environment -- is critical." ...
The fan demographic of Comic Con fans has grown beyond its 18- to-34-year-old core. "Now it's growing because as guys are getting older, they are not giving up enjoying these characters they enjoyed as kids -- whether video games, toys or comics -- and as they age they are getting their kids involved, so we are seeing older guys bringing their kids," he says. "Comic Con Is Coming To N.Y. Next Week," MediaPost, 10/12/2009.
While I am raising the idea that if musicians are now in the "stuff-selling business," they might want to have their own version of Comic-Con, Publishers Weekly has asked the same question about book publishing.
Has the San Diego Comic-Con become a possible model for what a contemporary publishing/media convention should be?
Although focused on comics—a sometimes tenuous connection in a show that could easily be called the San Diego Media-Con—the San Diego Comic-Con has emerged as the perfect example of the convergence of all manner of pop cultural phenomena under one roof. It's a big tent, a four-and-a-half-day carnival of panels, press conferences, business meetings, previews and bare-faced hype that has become so popular that San Diego fire marshals were forced to cap attendance at about 125,000. It's not simply that San Diego Comic-Con is popular—it's wildly popular. "San Diego Media-Con: One Big Size Fits All,"Publishers Weekly, 8/3/09.
The idea is also catching on with other industries. While there have been sports collectible conventions for a long time, now more teams are getting into the act.
In Denver, the Broncos held their sixth annual Fan Fair in Invesco Field at Mile High this past June. Tickets for a family of five cost $50 total, or adults could procure a weekend pass for $25. What did fans get for the price? They chatted with coaches, players, cheerleaders and even the team mascot. They got autographs, took photos and purchased memorabilia. "Fan conventions on the rise," msnbc.com, 1/15/09.
Since so many people are suggesting that the future of music business involves selling merchandise and limited edition products, I'll be exploring more on that later. Based on what I have already read about collectors/fans, most of them develop an interest in something first, start collecting objects related to that interest, and THEN seek out groups of collectors. But on the other hand, having a place to buy and trade seems to turn these niche interests into more of a pop culture phenomenon. So it will be worth looking at the value of creating music collectible events to give some significance to the direct-to-fan experiments.
But for now, let me close with a few examples of fan conventions. Reading those articles, I've drawn up a list of common elements that seem to go along with launching fan conventions:
1. Have enough fans (generally willing to spend lot of money in pursuit of their hobby) to justify having a convention. 2. Have fans wanting to seek out others with similar interests. 3. Have fans willing to travel to a convention. 4. Have a person or group of people who will organize a convention and, if necessary, nurture it until it reaches a critical mass to maintain some level of momentum.
Amanda Palmer has tossed out another interesting blog post.
i am shameless, and fearless, when it comes to money and art.
i can’t help it: i come from a street performance background....
if you think i’m going to pass up a chance to put my hat back down in front of the collected audience on my virtual sidewalk and ask them to give their hard-earned money directly to me instead of to roadrunner records, warner music group, ticketmaster, and everyone else out there who’s been shamelessly raping both fan and artist for years, you’re crazy. "Why I am not afraid to take your money,"Amanda Palmer blog, 9/29/09.
I've written about Palmer a lot. I particularly like to reference her as someone who is raising issues about the artist and her community. Here's my most recent blog post about the subject: "The Artist and Her Fans." You can also click on the "Amanda Palmer" tag to see other posts where I have used her as an example.
Zoe Keating, another musician using the Internet to increase her visibility, is also contributing to the discussion.
What is great about Twitter is that, like I said in the interview, it allows me to be myself to as many people as possible. Me and my music are the same thing and I've always had this stubborn, egotistical belief that if I just had a chance to get the real me across....people would be interested. The belief that what I'm doing is worthwhile, even if no one hears it, has sustained me through a lot of rejections and hard times. ...
Because there aren't very many mouths to feed, I don't feel any pressure to continually be selling more, more, more. I have never done an ounce of official marketing or publicity. I make enough to pay the mortgage, the bills, go out to dinner and a movie every now and then, go on vacation and save money for the future. I'm not rich, my car is old, but I have enough to live well and not be continually worried about money. That's really all I want. I want to exist and keep making more music. I'm in this for the long haul. Slow and steady is fine by me. "Deep thoughts on my music career," Zoe's Incredibly Interesting Blog, 9/27/09.
Keating has talked how Twitter has increased sales for her.
Keating says that the long-term effects of this rapid ascent in the Twitter-verse are yet to be determined, she did see an immediate jump in business. "Around the time that I went on the [Twitter] Suggested User list, my CD ['One Cello x 16: Natoma'] went to No. 1 on the iTunes classical chart, and it's stayed in the top 20 ever since," she says. "I've also gotten a lot more sales from my Web site, and I get lots of fan mail that says, 'I found out about you from Twitter.'" "TWEET CHILD O' MINE,"Billboard.biz, 5/30/09.
And I have also cited Imogen Heap using the Internet to connect with fans. "Fan Interaction the Imogen Heap Way." Here's additional info from her about the process.
"We live in this instant world. It feels wrong to not play anything and keep it all secret," Heap states between sips of water at Toronto's Intercontinental Hotel. "I wanted to share the process in the same way I would with a friend who drops in at the end of a work day; I'd want to play them what I'd been up to." ...
"That turned out to be brilliant for me to look back on and feel my process," remembers Heap, "otherwise one day to the next just feels like you haven't done anything, so it's great to look back at blog No. 1 and see the state of my studio and then see blog 19 when it's finished. The Twitter thing was just my way of filling in the gaps." "Imogen Heap Twitters her way to world dominance,"MSN Canada, 9/8/09.
With so many people now attempting to sell themselves and their music via Twitter, I'm not sure there will be enough money to go around. But I do like exploring how all these communication tools might be changing our perception of what it means to be an artist and to create. Here's a relevant quote from an author who interviewed thirty "visual artists, comedians, animators, documentary filmmakers, musicians, writers, and others who’ve pioneered new ways to build a creative career online (and off.)"
[Q] New media is a constantly evolving landscape from trends to platforms, do you expect a few standards to come out of this or are artists forced to constantly change their game plan? And is it important for them to?
[Answer from Kirsner] I think there are some things that are constants, like making people feel like they’re part of your process, involved, and are in some way supporting what you’re doing. But I do agree that there’s a constantly-evolving landscape out there. MySpace was once much more powerful than it is today. E-mail newsletters were once more effective than they are today. And you always have new things, whether it’s Twitter or live video Webcasting from mobile phones with services like Qik, that can be effective ways of communicating with your fan base. "Interview with Scott Kirsner on Fans, Friends & Followers,"CineVegas Blog, 3/31/09.
Some people are pointing to interactivity as a way to evolve the art itself, not just as a way for artists to talk to fans.
Media used to be made at what could be described as the “front end” of the process. I produce a song or book and release it to the market where it is consumed and talked about.
A product leads to a conversation…
But now that my cost of experimentation is zilch—and networks enable me to be in constant communication with people who share my interests—the diagram can just as easily be flipped and start at the “back end.” I can talk about and share my ideas with you, and once we have a collective vision of the “thing,” I can produce it (to then have you consume it).
A conversation leads to a product…
Furthermore, if the thing I produce (or we produce) is dispensable (like songs or stories), you might consume more of it and the process can stop being linear altogether… "From product to process," The Storybird blog, 5/28/09.
Looking for more discussion about how the artistic process might be changing, I found this from Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip Dilbert. It doesn't directly address fan input, but it brings up the idea that the creator may put forth a starting point which can then be refined over time.
If you are planning to create some business or other form of entertainment, you will need quality at some point to succeed. But what is more important than quality in the beginning is some intangible element that makes your project inherently interesting before anyone has even sampled it. That initial audience will give you the luxury of time to create quality. "Quality Follows Popularity," Scott Adams Blog, 2/13/2009.
He's essentially reversing the artistic process. Rather than coming up with a wonderful creation first, he's saying, "Come up with an idea, build an audience around it, get their input, and THEN make it better."
As I find more discussions about interactivity and the artistic process, I will add them here or do additional blog entries. I'll close with an excerpt from an interesting article exploring the history of Western art and its relationship to money.
In Arts & Consciousness we have always taught our students that art is intrinsically valuable. We haven’t emphasized the commercial aspects of art, but have instead focused on art’s connection to self-affirmation, health, cultural identity and spiritual truth. We have proceeded from the assertion that if these things are adequately achieved, then money will be received by the artist as a natural and inevitable result of having created new value in the world....
When the recovery from the current crisis occurs, it seems possible that the world will re-discover the value of art as an essential part of culture – not as a coveted object but as living and breathing part of everyday life. "Post-Modernism, Economic Collapse and the Search for Value in Art."Arts and Consciousness, 2/4/09.
If this becomes the case, we may end up not valuing the art as an object or even as an experience, but for its contribution or effectiveness.
And here's a good resource. This paper was published in 2001 to foster a discussion of Silicon Valley as a creative community, but it covers creative communities throughout history. Some of the same concepts can be applied to creativity and the online community.
