Being a music fan is much different these days than it was even five years ago. As fans, we have so much information available to us about our favorite artists. Do a quick Google search for any musician, and if they are anywhere on the radar screen, chances are you will turn up hundreds if not thousands of hits.

Even if you had time to read and digest it all, would you really want to? I am certainly guilty of spending hours behind the computer screen checking out the latest blog entry or video some band posted from the road. Recently though, I have decided to make a conscious effort to try and avoid some of the never ending sound/text/video bites. The main reason, I am actually losing interest in some of these artists that are “too” connected to their fans.

I think that over exposure and too much information can actually hurt an artist’s career. There are some music industry marketing types that may disagree with me. Some people buy into a theory that if you are trying to make it in the music industry, you need to be everywhere, maximizing your exposure at all times. I believe that an artist needs the right type of exposure at the right time in their career (more on this in the future). I also believe that an artist at any level needs to maintain a bit of mystique.

There is a great article written by Brian McCollum that came out in the Detroit Free Press earlier this week. He nails down this idea that with all of the information available to fans theses days, many artists have been demystified to the point where people begin to lose interest.

After the twentieth YouTube video, not only does the novelty of using short videos as a promotional tool wear off, but if the videos still have fresh content at that point, there is probably not much else to learn about an artist. People will eventually tune it out and look for something else.

I’m not saying that all of these new ways of promoting artists online (videos, blogs, social networking sites) are detrimental to their careers. In fact, if used the right way, most of it can be helpful. But be careful. Use some moderation. I love to see the occasional behind the scenes video, but leave a little mystery on the table. As McCollum points out in his article, back when artists didn’t reveal everything, “It strengthened their grip on our imaginations. It gave them staying power.”

This past weekend my friend Josh and I checked out a seminar put on by the SAE Institute of Technology in Nashville. The focus of the presentation was the work of the legendary Alan Parsons. Many people know his work as a performer in the Alan Parsons Project.

What some may not know is that Alan is famous in the audio engineering world for his work with countless artists including the Beatles and Pink Floyd. Alan worked on both “Abbey Road” and “Dark Side of the Moon” to name just a couple of gargantuan projects. This guy was there when the Beatles made their final performance on the rooftop of the Apple Corps in London in 1969. Pretty amazing if you ask me.

Overall the seminar was interesting. I do have to say thank you to Lightning 100 who hooked me up with the tickets. And regarding my last post, yes, Lightning 100 is an independently owned and operated radio station, and it shows in a good way.

Aside from some audio technical difficulties, (a bit ironic given that the main sponsor was an audio engineering school) I enjoyed Alan’s historical anecdotes regarding some of the most famous recordings in musical history. During the above mentioned rooftop performance by the Beatles, Alan had to run across the street and buy some pantyhose to wrap around the microphones to help cut down on wind noise. The clerk in the store didn’t know what to think when Alan said he needed some womens stockings quickly, and no, size didn’t matter.

We were supposed to get to hear Alan’s quadraphonic mix of Dark Side of the Moon, but they couldn’t get the sound system to work. I was a little bummed, but this seminar was still a great opportunity to see someone who has left their mark on not only the music industry but pop culture as well.

How do you discover new music? Try and think about the last band/artist that you fell in love with. How did you first hear about them? Was it something you heard on the radio? I would have to answer no to that question. With the exception of a few independently owned and operated stations, I stopped listening to FM radio a long time ago.

Why…? After listening to extremely limited and repetitive play lists, way too many commercials, overly chatty morning shows (I don’t care what you ate for breakfast, play a song) and lack of unique on-air personality, I simply turned FM radio off and subscribed to XM Satellite Radio where there is tons of variety, and nearly zero commercials. Terrestrial radio no longer provided a great listening experience for me and the main reason for listening to FM radio, to discover new music, has long disappeared.

I’m not the only one who feels this way. A new study put out by Paragon Media Strategies reveals that 14-24 year olds, who are the future of radio, would listen to the radio more if radio played more new music. This demographic is increasingly turning to other sources for their music. Younger generations are much more likely to use social networking sites, hear something on TV, or scan their friend’s ipod to discover something new than turn on the FM dial.

If you didn’t read The Music Man, the New York Times article about Rick Rubin that came out in September which had everyone talking about the future of the music business, there was a great little passage about whether younger music fans listen to the radio. According to Columbia Records’ focus groups, people have stopped relying on the radio for finding new music. Instead, music fans are relying on word of mouth to hear about new bands and artists.

So where does this leave radio? I think it will be increasingly difficult to capture the loyalty of an audience that has found easier, more personal, and more reliable sources for new music. How can you go wrong with your friend’s recommendation? People are not rushing out to buy radios, but they are spending truck loads of money on ipods. Last time I checked, ipods didn’t have an FM tuner.

Radio will probably always be around. But will true music fans (those that don’t put the radio on for background noise) ever really listen again? Will you turn on the radio to be entertained, or fire up your ipod? Are you more interested in what station your friends are listening to, or do you want to check out their playlists?

There is a great post over at The Long Tail written by Chris Anderson about how everything in the music industry is actually up except for CD sales. By the way, if you haven’t checked out The Long Tail you should…interesting stuff.

Everywhere I look these days people are talking about the decline the music industry is in, but what exactly are they talking about? As Anderson points out, the only aspect of the music industry that is really down is CD sales. Granted, CD sales account for a large portion of the music industry, but consider some of the other areas that make up the industry as a whole. Concert tickets, merchandise, digital tracks, ring tones, music licensing, and vinyl singles are all on the rise.

If you define the music industry as the sale of compact discs, then of course, the future of music industry has probably never looked worse than it does right now. If, however, you define the music industry in broader terms to include things such as concert promotion, merchandise, licensing, etc., then the state of the music industry might not be as terrible as many people think.

This is why the major record labels are trying to reinvent themselves by coming out with these new “record deals” that demand part of an artist’s tour, merchandise, licensing, and publishing revenue streams. This topic really calls for its own separate post, but if I were an artist looking for a record deal, I would be VERY LEERY of signing with a major record label that wanted any part of these additional sources of income, regardless of how large of an advance they offer.

Part of the reason major record labels have developed the shady reputations they have is because they have shenanigan accounting practices. For example, many major record labels still charge artists for items such as “breakage,” which came about over fifty years ago when music was distributed on shellac records that easily broke during transport. Have you ever tried to break a CD? Its nearly impossible. Additionally many major record labels still charge artists for “research and development” on the CD. The cost of research and development for distributing music on the CD has been recouped ages ago.

The point is this, if record labels are going to start defining their role in the music industry in broader terms, are you going to trust them with managing part of your tour, your merchandise, your licensing, or your career? I once had a professor who spent over thirty years in the music industry tell me that to his knowledge, there has never been an audit of a major record label that didn’t reveal that the record label owed an artist more royalties than had been paid.

If the major record labels have such “creative” accounting practices for record contracts, I can only imagine what they might do with a contract that includes additional revenue streams such as touring, licensing, merchandise, etc.

Defining the music industry in broad terms may provide a positive outlook for an industry that seems plagued by negative news. If the major record labels begin defining their role in the music industry using a broader scope, (as some already have) I hope they change a lot more about how they conduct business.

This may be old news to some, but a couple of weeks ago Starbucks’ record label Hear Music announced that it will be re-releasing Paul McCartney’s latest album Memory Almost Full with new tracks and a DVD.

I understand that Hear Music isn’t the first label to do the re-release thing. I mean, what respectable record label wouldn’t want to add some outtakes that weren’t good enough for the original release and dupe people into purchasing an album again. The label knows that true fans will be compelled to repurchase the album just to get these “special” reissue tracks and the DVD.

I don’t see anything wrong with re-releasing music that is thirty years old that has been completely remastered or was out of print. There is some added value in either case and many people are willing to repurchase an album that they think will sound better than the original, or that has not been available for a while. The original in Hear Music’s case, however, is only four months old. If the new tracks are so great, they would have been on the original. As for the DVD, how many times will you really watch it?

This is precisely the type of thing that propels people to steal music. If I had rushed out to buy this album when it was first released, I certainly wouldn’t be waiting in line to buy it again. I’d be waiting behind the screen of my computer watching the new tracks download…for free.

I hope it’s the label and not McCartney that is behind this re-release. You’d expect it from a record label in the twenty-first century, but who knows.

If you haven’t already seen this great slide show of music 2.0 services put together by Go2Web2, check it out.

Basically they put a bunch of different music related web 2.0 sites together in a slide show so you can catch a glimpse of each site and get an idea of what the sites offer. There are some great services out there and people are doing some really creative things with web 2.0.

The interesting part for me is how sites like these affect/change the music industry and how people interact with each other and share music. I think there are interesting opportunities here whether you are an independent musician, record label, management company, or promoter.

Which ones do you use or recommend? Which ones do you think will have the biggest impact on music?

Frankly I’m not sure anyone, myself included, has an answer to this question. All I have are more questions. Here’s what my brain has been chewing on for the past few days.

If artists are now using free or nearly free music to get people to buy tickets to their shows and to buy t-shirts, does this change how they approach writing and recording that “masterpiece, epic” album? What, if anything, does using the record as a “loss leader” for other revenue streams change? Will records be rushed out now so bands don’t miss the summer tour season? After all, the album is free right? What we mess up in the studio we can make up for on the road.

How long will the novelty of what Radiohead has done with “In Rainbows” last? The name your own price idea was great, but the real interesting part was how they used it as a promotional tool. What happens when the next band (maybe Oasis or Jamiroquai) tries to do something similar? What type of artist can use this approach and be successful with it? Could Britney Spears do the same with her new album coming out in late October? Would her fans pay a reasonable retail price as Radiohead claims their fans have?

What if you don’t tour? Where does the revenue come from? Your clothing, perfume, and Chevy commercials? How do you compete with artists that give their music away for free?

How about artists who don’t write their own songs? How do songwriters, publishers, and producers get paid mechanical royalties? Huh…are mechanical royalties on their way out? Will performing rights licenses become more expensive to make up for lost mechanical royalties? Will the record label, mangers, agents, and lawyers want a cut?

Does free really help when nobody knows about the album you are giving away? Even with the added help of online distribution and Internet marketing, there is still a major question of how to break new emerging artists.

I do realize I’m not the first to ask most of these questions. While the answers will continually change, I think there is one thing that needs to remain the same regardless of the business model. If you call yourself an artist, you have a responsibility to create the best music you possibly can. It sounds obvious but this is easier said than done. As I mentioned in a previous post, I think your fans will support you if you give them something to support.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t think of a better way to spend a Friday or Saturday night, or any night of the week for that matter, than experiencing live music. I am fortunate to live in city that has great live music seven nights a week (see Nashville, Where Country is Only the Tip of the Iceberg).

While part of me would like to spend every single night at a different venue, I’m not sure how long my ear drums or the “home-lifer” in me would put up with it. I do, however, try to make it to at least one or two shows a week. This got me thinking though. My ears and the convenience of the sofa aside, if I could go see live music every night of the week, where would I rather spend my time and money, the coffee shop, the club, or the arena?

Here’s what I decided. I’ve pretty much given up on the arena, stadium, and large amphitheater for experiencing great music. The only exception here is when Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers roll into town. Its not that you can’t hear “good” music at a large venue, but there are too many other negative factors that weigh in. First, these types of shows, if you’re even able to get tickets, are usually way over priced. I don’t want to point fingers as to who is responsible for high ticket prices because it is usually a combination of factors. But my days of jumping on the computer right as the “pre-sale” begins, only to be stuck in row 80 at $150.00 a pop before added fees are over.

Secondly, you have to order your tickets exclusively through Ticketmaster, pay the above mentioned additional fees, fight large crowds, and struggle to find parking. You usually have to plan to attend these types of shows months in advance and for me, that takes some of the spontaneity and fun out of the experience.

I don’t want this post to be about how you shouldn’t go these bigger shows, but rather, why it is better to support smaller national, regional, and local acts. First, for the cost of one arena show, you could see seven or eight shows at small venues and experience a lot more variety. Plus, I think there is a part of all of us that likes to support the underdog so to speak. While many of the acts that play club shows these days are really successful, there are just as many artists that are struggling to make it. I would rather support them than help an act on their eighth farewell tour buy a yacht. I also like the idea of supporting smaller independent promoters and venue owners.

Additionally, I get a much more up close and personal feeling at smaller shows. Many of these shows are general admission and providing that you are not fashionably late, you can sit or stand where ever you choose to. There are not additional parking fees, and entering a club or coffee shop usually isn’t a metal detector frisking affair.

So for my time and money, I’d much rather experience live music at the clubs and coffee shops where I feel like I am contributing to an artists career and my local community. I think we will see a rise in the number of smaller venue shows as many of the acts that are still able to fill the arena and amphitheaters permanently retire.