Ethics in Promotion?

[JohnIce]

I think it is futile to fight this.

The overwhelming majority is happy about selling themselves like prostitutes to solicit attention that translate into cash.
This isn't something new. Every media platform since the bronze age has ended up working the same way. The internet wasn't going to stay a pure virgin forever.
It was inevitably going to turn into a reflection of the real world, where the majority is fake bullshit and the minority is real.

The people who prefer to stay truly genuine usually represent a niche interest with a devoted crowd.
They don't depend on the click-money, they don't care about the attention and they disdain the sensationalism.
For everyone else, the order of the day is the dog-eat-dog world known as the pop-culture entertainment industry.

To me, the type of attention you get from click-bait is the same kind of attention you get from being the kid in school that's eating worms. But apparently, most people prefer this.

I saw the producer No I.D. (Kanye, Jay Z etc.) talking about something like this in an interview with Ableton, where he basically separated entertainment artists from cultural artists, as he works with both. What I got from it was that the entertainment artists will sell regardless, they make music for people to dance to and feel good, and as such they're pretty much replaceable and get replaced, the best they can do is to be better than the competition, for a while. But if they don't do what they do, someone else will.

Cultural artists however, are the ones who are needed for their cultural value, and their job is to develop their artistry and be irreplaceable. So when he's producing such an artist, making hits is not the priority but developing the message and the personality of the artist is what matters more. These artists develop a very devoted fanbase organically, have fewer hits but sell out shows for decades regardless of trends. I count artists like Dylan, Bowie, Björk and Tori Amos in that category, if they don't do it no one else could have done it.

However, I don't think one is necessarily more niche or underground than the other. I just think it's a lot less common for any given musician to have something valuable to add to culture or spearhead a new musical movement, and for them it makes more sense to just make entertainment music and market the living balls out of it by any means necessary.

 

[bostjan]

Shh...

You guys can turn your noses up at anything and everything trendy all you want, but to categorically do so is just as bad as playing into these trends.

At the end of the day, as musicians, we still have to eat. People listen to artists that their friends talk about. You could be a level 99 bedroom shredder who writes the equivalent of Beethoven's Tenth Symphony, and there is a distinct possibility that no one will support you in your career. On the other hand, maybe you make your career performing three chord proto-garage songs in your underwear beating yourself bloody with your own microphone and defecating on stage, and you become an eternal underground music icon as a result.

My point is, that you do what you like, and you do what gets you success. There is a balance in between there somewhere. You can be the most TRV3 CVLT band with exactly one youtube view and a pretentious attitude toward not selling out, you can be a gimmick band that does anything and everything to pander to the largest crowd possible whilst making music no one in the band likes, or you can do youtube covers of pop songs in whichever style you actually like. I don't see why there should be any shame in the last option.

On the other hand, I thought this thread was more about videos/media posted publicly with incendiary or misleading titles. When I browse youtube and come across a video with likes disabled, or with 3x as many dislikes as likes, I simply press the skip button and move on.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://soundcloud.com/pedropeedro/game-of-thrones-fidget-spinner-featuring-spiderman-homecoming

Awesome!

I'll check the song out as soon as I get home.

 

[JohnIce]

Shh...

You guys can turn your noses up at anything and everything trendy all you want, but to categorically do so is just as bad as playing into these trends.

At the end of the day, as musicians, we still have to eat. People listen to artists that their friends talk about. You could be a level 99 bedroom shredder who writes the equivalent of Beethoven's Tenth Symphony, and there is a distinct possibility that no one will support you in your career. On the other hand, maybe you make your career performing three chord proto-garage songs in your underwear beating yourself bloody with your own microphone and defecating on stage, and you become an eternal underground music icon as a result.

My point is, that you do what you like, and you do what gets you success. There is a balance in between there somewhere. You can be the most TRV3 CVLT band with exactly one youtube view and a pretentious attitude toward not selling out, you can be a gimmick band that does anything and everything to pander to the largest crowd possible whilst making music no one in the band likes, or you can do youtube covers of pop songs in whichever style you actually like. I don't see why there should be any shame in the last option.

On the other hand, I thought this thread was more about videos/media posted publicly with incendiary or misleading titles. When I browse youtube and come across a video with likes disabled, or with 3x as many dislikes as likes, I simply press the skip button and move on.

If this is a response to me, I'm not turning my nose up at anything, just answering the OP's questions that in my experience, yes there are marketing attitudes that turn me off and reflect poorly on the artist. That's just me though. I wouldn't call them unethical, or say they lack a place in the musical landscape, I'm just not the target audience. The way you market yourself reflects your brand which reflects your art, so it's good to be conscious about why you do what you do and what you're aiming for, before saying "all publicity is good publicity" and totally shooting yourself in the foot. I thought that's what the thread was about?

 

[bostjan]

If this is a response to me, I'm not turning my nose up at anything, just answering the OP's questions that in my experience, yes there are marketing attitudes that turn me off and reflect poorly on the artist. That's just me though. I wouldn't call them unethical, or say they lack a place in the musical landscape, I'm just not the target audience. The way you market yourself reflects your brand which reflects your art, so it's good to be conscious about why you do what you do and what you're aiming for, before saying "all publicity is good publicity" and totally shooting yourself in the foot. I thought that's what the thread was about?

Well no, I meant that in general. It's a sentiment I hear, in general, very often. I was taking your specific example, though, and running with it.

Everyone is entitled to his or her own tastes, for sure, but if something isn't a person's particular taste, it's simply more accurate for that person to say "I don't like this" than for the person to say "this is bad."

I've always been a little confused by the notion of certain music being "culturally significant" whilst other music is not, and not having it based upon the popularity of the music. What, then, is the basis for cultural significance? Usually, it seems, when people try to put metrics on that term, it ends up being almost directly measured by the popularity of the piece.

I do, however, fail to see how the example of a metalcore band covering a Taylor Swift song fits in the same category of a video that is clearly mislabeled to gain a higher view count. It's nothing at all new - a lot of well known bands from past eras got their start by covering a well known song in a style that contrasts significantly with the style of the original. Some of them were only widely known for their cover songs, whilst others went on to have success with their original compositions.

I mean, do we extend that logic to undermine the careers of the following artists, whose biggest hits were covers:
Jimi Hendrix, Cyndi Lauper, Sinead O'Connor, Elvis, Aretha Franklin, The Black Crowes, Janis Joplin, Whitney Houston, Sixpence None the Richer, Soft Cell, Joan Jett, The Bangles, Quiet Riot, Alien Ant Farm, Reel Big Fish, etc. etc.
?

So then why is there a problem with a metalcore band covering a pop song, even if it does seem that they get more exposure from it? I guess if it ends up being something they refuse to play live, then that's another story.

But that's just my weigh-in. It's all a matter of taste.

 

[Ebony]

I've always been a little confused by the notion of certain music being "culturally significant" whilst other music is not, and not having it based upon the popularity of the music. What, then, is the basis for cultural significance?

That's a big one that I don''t think anyone can answer it as it's all a matter of perspective.

If booty-twerking, paid for product-placements in sexualized music-videos, monetary worship and resting bitch-face selfies are culture, then Nicky Minaj is a huge cultural influencer.

If musical complexity combined with lyrical concepts of either body mutilation or spiritual disillusion is culture then guys like Suicmez, Schuldiner and Haake has a massive cultural influence.

 

[TedEH]

If booty-twerking, paid for product-placements in sexualized music-videos, monetary worship and resting bitch-face selfies are culture, then Nicky Minaj is a huge cultural influencer.

The fact that we're familiar with all of the above without any further context confirms that it's true- there's no real "if" involved. Whether or not something is deep or meaningful has little to nothing to do with whether or not it contributes to culture.

 

[bostjan]

But, when a curator or librarian decided whether something is worth preserving in records, you know as well as I do that the booty-twerking example, 3 times out of 4, is discarded, and the Death Metal, 99 times out of 100, is discarded with prejudice.

Yet, visit a library with a sizeable sound catalogue and you'll find some music of which I guarantee you've never been aware.

Thus my confusion in how the process is executed.

 

[Ebony]

The fact that we're familiar with all of the above without any further context confirms that it's true- there's no real "if" involved. Whether or not something is deep or meaningful has little to nothing to do with whether or not it contributes to culture.

But defining culture as simply how long and wide it reaches is not necessarily the only way of defining it.

The common definitions of culture are VERY open to interpretation.

- "The act of developing moral and intellectual faculties"

- "integrated pattern of knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations"

 

[bostjan]

The common definitions of culture are VERY open to interpretation.

I think we are all saying the same thing to each other, but I might be mistaken.

This day and age, we don't live in a culture so much as a mosaic of counter-cultures.

 

[JohnIce]

My point (or No I.D.'s point) about cultural vs. entertainment artists is more of a mindset when making the music, which by extension can give a hint about how it should be marketed to its best effect. If you want to call them X and Y artists instead to avoid confusion over literal definitions, sure. I'd be fine to call them Coca-Cola artists and Whiskey artists.

I mean, do we extend that logic to undermine the careers of the following artists, whose biggest hits were covers:
Jimi Hendrix, Cyndi Lauper, Sinead O'Connor, Elvis, Aretha Franklin, The Black Crowes, Janis Joplin, Whitney Houston, Sixpence None the Richer, Soft Cell, Joan Jett, The Bangles, Quiet Riot, Alien Ant Farm, Reel Big Fish, etc. etc.

I wouldn't, because like I said making one or two covers because you legitimately bond with the song and want to elaborate on it like all of your examples did, that's one thing. All the artists you mentioned have unique personal styles, and it's in those styles that they did the covers. No one could have played All along the Watchtower the way Jimi did, when he did it. It was 100% in line with his artistic vision, and he LOVED Bob Dylan, some even claim Dylan was his favorite artist. It led to Dylan spending most of his career playing that song in Jimi's version instead, even.

To me there's a world of difference between that and what I'm talking about, which is generic sounding bands who cover the latest hit song, regardless of who made it, week after week purely to ride the hype of the charts. But like I said, lots of people want to hear chart pop done in a generic metal or pop-punk version, so if you're cool with doing that then there's a market for it, I still have every right to subjectively think it's lame It doesn't mean such artists can't develop over time and make something original that appeals to me five years later, but that's a story for that day.

 

[bostjan]

To me there's a world of difference between that and what I'm talking about, which is generic sounding bands who cover the latest hit song, regardless of who made it, week after week purely to ride the hype of the charts. But like I said, lots of people want to hear chart pop done in a generic metal or pop-punk version, so if you're cool with doing that then there's a market for it, I still have every right to subjectively think it's lame It doesn't mean such artists can't develop over time and make something original that appeals to me five years later, but that's a story for that day.

Everyone is entitled to his or her own tastes, for sure, but if something isn't a person's particular taste, it's simply more accurate for that person to say "I don't like this" than for the person to say "this is bad."

I mean, in a general sense, this is exactly what I was talking about.

Where do you draw the line at "generic-sounding?" Jimi's "All Along the Watchtower" sounded nothing like Dylan's original, outside of the lyrics and chord structure. Sinead's "Nothing Compares 2 U" was, for me, totally different than the Prince original. But, well, a few of the examples I gave were pretty darn similar. Then you have, like, the entire whichever-teenth wave of ska bands, like Reel Big Fish, who covered an 80's pop song, like "Take on Me," in a generic ska style. ...to the point where it was certainly "trendy" to do a ska cover of an 80's pop song. Was that tasteful? What about the first band that did it?

I hope that doesn't sound argumentative. I really don't have a dog in the fight. I just thought it'd be a good discussion.

 

[JohnIce]

I mean, in a general sense, this is exactly what I was talking about.

Where do you draw the line at "generic-sounding?" Jimi's "All Along the Watchtower" sounded nothing like Dylan's original, outside of the lyrics and chord structure. Sinead's "Nothing Compares 2 U" was, for me, totally different than the Prince original. But, well, a few of the examples I gave were pretty darn similar. Then you have, like, the entire whichever-teenth wave of ska bands, like Reel Big Fish, who covered an 80's pop song, like "Take on Me," in a generic ska style. ...to the point where it was certainly "trendy" to do a ska cover of an 80's pop song. Was that tasteful? What about the first band that did it?

I hope that doesn't sound argumentative. I really don't have a dog in the fight. I just thought it'd be a good discussion.

Yeah, I think the line is a subjective one and should best be left as one. Objectivity in your appreciation of music doesn't have much practical use, to me, if it's even attainable at all.

 

[thoughtpyotr]

This day and age, we don't live in a culture so much as a mosaic of counter-cultures.

and/or subcultures. Advances in information tech have made the world so interconnected, but ironically people are so individually minded now and kinda sequestered. I'm not religious but I feel like in the past (when western civ wasn't so secular) people had a tendency to be more communal. Maybe it is because religion gave people (who didn't have anything in common) a reason to come together. This "openness" trickled down to other aspects of socializing.

This a positive thing for music in particular. I think clickbait or other opportunistic/desperate baiting methods would not be so predominant if audiences were more like "oh shit is this about metal? let me give it the time of day" instead of "I'm not sure if this aligns with my particular sensibilities so I don't have time for it."

Maybe I'm being too cynical but that's just how things seem to be now.

 

[bostjan]

On this site, I would venture a guess that >75% of active users have some interest in metal. Yet there are dozens of "check out my band" threads popping up every time I sign in. It has gotten to the point where, I think, it is necessary to somehow step out from the background noise if you want to be heard.

In general, I don't think it's a bad thing to try to come up with an angle, have an idea of how to market your music, etc. In fact, I would say that it is more or less necessary to think that way.

We tend to socialize around the things we like, but make friends over what we dislike. Having an understanding of that might make all of the difference in trying to get noticed.

 

[Señor Voorhees]

Yeah a buddy of mine does this. He's gotten some views on youtube but anything original doesn't nearly get as much attention. It's kinda like the reach doesnt translate to his other stuff

I'm annoyed by this. My youtube has tons of hits on covers I did for fun and less than a hundred hits on songs I wrote and am proud of. I understand why that is, but it is still disheartening.

 

[thoughtpyotr]

We tend to socialize around the things we like, but make friends over what we dislike. Having an understanding of that might make all of the difference in trying to get noticed.

Damn that's pretty insightful.

But yeah forums like this, where the intent is to showcase or explore other's projects, are the best place to start as an artist.

You're right though there is too much content to keep track off. I saw an article recently that said people aren't interested in your music as much as they are in your story. I thought that was a good way to put it but when I self reflect I feel like im not interesting enough haha.

 

[JohnIce]

In general, I don't think it's a bad thing to try to come up with an angle, have an idea of how to market your music, etc. In fact, I would say that it is more or less necessary to think that way.

Agreed. Marketing is just communication, you can get maximum attention by running around naked and yelling curse words but that doesn't mean you're actually communicating anything by doing that. In other words, good marketing is not maximum attention, it's maximum communication, and good communication is getting a clear message across to the people who are likely to be interested in that message in the first place.

I still hold Seth Godin as my favourite speaker on this. This Ted talk is gold for anyone who hasn't seen it:

 

[bostjan]

Agreed. Marketing is just communication, you can get maximum attention by running around naked and yelling curse words but that doesn't mean you're actually communicating anything by doing that. In other words, good marketing is not maximum attention, it's maximum communication, and good communication is getting a clear message across to the people who are likely to be interested in that message in the first place.

I still hold Seth Godin as my favourite speaker on this. This Ted talk is gold for anyone who hasn't seen it:

The base of communication is getting the listener's attention.

And, to counter your example, Michael Portnoy (the artist, not the drummer) boosted his career significantly by doing almost exactly what you used as an example. Check out the 1998 Grammy awards performance and see if you recall the words "Soy Bomb" better or worse than the lyrics of the song performed that evening.

 

[JohnIce]

The base of communication is getting the listener's attention.

And, to counter your example, Michael Portnoy (the artist, not the drummer) boosted his career significantly by doing almost exactly what you used as an example. Check out the 1998 Grammy awards performance and see if you recall the words "Soy Bomb" better or worse than the lyrics of the song performed that evening.

I think you're drawing a line where there doesn't need to be one. Of course communication requires the attention of the listener, I'd think that wouldn't need clarification. But that doesn't mean communication = attention so attention is not in and of itself good marketing. Michael Portnoy's Soy Bomb act was not marketing, it was performance art, i.e. his actual product. However it did communicate very well who Michael Portnoy is as an artist, promoting his brand in exactly the way I'm advocating here. With that said there are decades of examples of gratuitous nudity used in marketing to make the point I guess you're actually trying to make, but like I already said, it gets attention. Then what?

 

[bostjan]

Right, so if the title of a video grabs a person's attention, then the video is something else, what just happened is that the marketing caught the person's attention, then, what the actual video is, is the message to be conveyed. No one is saying that communication = attention. What I am saying is that communication = f(attention, other things), to put it into pseudomathematical terms.

You could have the greatest ad in the world, but if no one sees it, it is horrible marketing. You could have a mediocre ad with mediocre attention on it, and you'd have bad marketing. What is funky, is when a bad ad gets a lot of attention. This is not great marketing, for sure, but I would argue that it's more likely to have a better marketing outcome than the mediocre ad with mediocre attention on it.

So, in the case of the artist posting the video - the video is done, and it is whatever it is. How can this artist get more views? Well, the easy answer is to put a trendy and misleading clickbait title. I guarantee the clickbait title will get more views than the boring title 10 times out of 10. If the content is good, a few people might even forgive the clickbait title (I see it here all of the time, actually). If the content is awful, then it was awful content either way, but at least this youtuber got you to pay attention to him or her for a few seconds.