The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
b-side
Thursday, January 24, 2019 — 3B
When I returned to school
after winter break in elementary
school, there was only one thing
on everyone’s minds: What sort of
gifts did everyone get? Everyone
seemed to be interested in
seeing if their presents were as
cool as everyone else’s. In fifth
grade, my good friend Tyler
and I had each received iPod
Nanos. However, there was one
difference between our two
devices — while I had about
forty songs on my iPod (Radio
Disney Kid Jams Vol. 1 and 2),
Tyler had hundreds.
I didn’t know it at the time,
but there was no way Tyler was
listening to all of those songs as
a fifth grader. But either way,
I was jealous. I wanted to have
more songs on my iPod. So after
asking Tyler about how he got
all of those songs on his iPod, I
learned about a website called
Limewire where you could (or
as I understood it), “Download
songs for free.” And so began
my relationship with music and
instant gratification.
Music streaming has been
almost
seamlessly
integrated
into our everyday lives. And
with this emergence of a new
way to access music comes
those arguing for and against
that method. Many claim that
streaming services hurt the
artists, while others think that
it allows listeners to experience
much more music than ever
before.
Both sides are right, in some
respect, but the argument that
the artists are losing money
from
streaming
services
is
only partially correct: Artists
that relinquish control of their
streaming
rights
to
labels
are
really
the
ones
losing
out. Relying on an internet-
based music platform without
adapting to an internet-based
plan of making, producing and
serving music is not a recipe for
success. With increased ease to
produce and release music due to
advancements in technology and
the proliferation of the internet
and
an
increased
demand
for instant gratification from
consumers, the need for artists
to have a label is becoming
almost irrelevant.
One of the most famous
examples of an independent
artist is Chancelor Bennett, or,
as he’s more commonly known,
Chance the Rapper. Bennett
started by releasing his debut
mixtape, 10 Day, to the world,
garnering upwards of 500,000
downloads
on
the
mixtape
sharing site DatPiff. After being
recognized as one of the most
prolific up-and-coming artists
by publications like Complex
and Forbes, Bennett released
his second mixtape, Acid Rap, in
2013 to even more widespread
acclaim
than
his
previous
mixtape.
However even after achieving
such a high level of success
and working with artists like
Childish
Gambino,
Kanye
West
and
Kendrick
Lamar,
getting millions of streams on
streaming services, and selling
out stadiums across the country,
Bennett
continues
to
stay
independent. When asked if he
would ever sign with a label in
an interview with Rolling Stone,
Bennett replied, “There’s no
reason to. It’s a dead industry.”
A lesser known but still
very familiar artist is Claire
Cottrill, better known by her
stage name, Clairo. Although
Cottrill is now signed to Fader,
a record label based in New
York City, and has also been
accused of being an “industry
plant,” her initial success can be
completely attributed to herself
and websites like YouTube and
Bandcamp. When I first saw
Cottrill’s music video for her
song “Pretty Girl” on YouTube
in late August of 2017, it had a
couple hundred thousand views.
Now, the video has surpassed 26
million views on YouTube, and
although the single wasn’t added
to streaming services until a
short while after the videos
initial release, the track has over
34 million streams on Spotify. All
for a track produced completely
by Cottrill on equipment she
described as, “pretty shitty.”
Although she has only been
signed to a label within the past
two years, one can see music
released
from
Cottrill
from
as far back as 2013 on various
online platforms. From covers
to originals, Cottrill has the
freedom to post whatever she
wanted for everyone to listen to.
And although she’s been accused
of being a sellout many times, the
consistency in sound of Cottrill’s
music begs to differ.
Sites
like
Bandcamp,
Soundcloud and YouTube have
allowed artists like Clairo to
release their music to the world
without going through a label.
Although this can give artists a
lot of freedom and options for
their music, it also complicates
things a bit. Because these
services exist to artists for
basically no cost, and home
recording is becoming a cheaper
and
cheaper
activity
(many
current
computers
including
multitrack recording software
upon launch), basically anyone
can release music.
Like, anyone.
With all of this music being
released, it’s not surprising to
see how saturated the music
industry has become. Every
minute, twelve hours of music
are uploaded to Soundcloud.
That’s a lot of music. The amount
of new music that people have
not heard yet continues to grow
at a rate that is unachievable for
the average listener to catch up
to.
So how do listeners decide
which new artists they want
to discover? The purpose of
a record label used to be to
produce artists’s records and
then promote them. Well, artists
are already capable of producing
their own work, so how has
this new age of the internet and
technology influenced that? Are
labels still necessary for that?
Well … sort of.
While it’s true that labels
might have more money to
promote
artists
and
send
them on tour, artists are still
fully
capable
of
marketing
themselves, and even booking
their own tours. Social media
has completely revolutionized
the way we communicate with
each other and has changed
the way we advertise as well.
It’s now easier than ever to
reach billions of people that are
connected online for free or
close to it.
The DIY music scene and its
continued emergence in culture
exemplifies the ease of self-
promoting and booking in the
21st century. Countless student-
run bands from Ann Arbor
have put on tours of their own,
traveling across the Midwest
and beyond without the help of
a label; simply asking friends if
they know anywhere they can
play is enough of a start for them
to go on tour.
But self-funded shows go a
lot further than DIY basement
shows. Bands can easily book
their own national tours, and
even fund them. Sites like
GoFundMe
and
IndieGoGo
make it possible for bands
to raise funds for tours on a
grander scale.
Ann Arbor favorite Vulfpeck
figured out a way to fund a
national tour back in 2014 using
resources that would have only
been available to them in the
internet age. By uploading an
album of silence to Spotify,
asking their fans to stream
it while they sleep and then
using the money made through
streaming to fund a tour, the
group was able to fund a tour
that was completely free to fans
spanning from Los Angeles to
New York.
A
musical
artist’s
metaphorical tool belt continues
to grow and grow each and
every year. The more resources
they have, the less they need
a label and the more they can
focus on expanding their brand
on their own terms. Consulting
professionals can still be helpful,
but the need for artists to sign
daunting and binding contracts
is just not there anymore.
How the internet changed
the way artists are signed
FADER
VULF RECORDS
RYAN COX
Daily Arts Writer
Like it or not, celebrities
play a pivotal role in our
society. Whether it’s to take a
stand politically or to promote
a controversial diet, there’s
no doubt that they have an
extensive influence on the way
we live our lives and how we
fill our time. Consequently, it’s
no surprise that their impact
reaches beyond our screens and
into the books we read.
In
1996,
the
publishing
industry saw a drastic shift in
the way books were marketed to
the world with the introduction
of Oprah Winfrey’s book club.
The program ran for 15 years
and many of the books went on
to become bestsellers, certain
titles selling over 1 million
copies. Since then, celebrities
everywhere have joined the book
club craze: Reese Witherspoon
and Jimmy Fallon both have
prominent clubs of their own,
and the books they endorse have
had similar successes.
It shouldn’t be a surprise to
anyone that the books celebrities
enjoy
and
publicly
support
experience
positive
public
feedback. What’s concerning
is the fact that authors and
books may suffer because of the
individual tastes of the people
directing what the public is
reading. One economist pointed
out that while Oprah favored
certain classic books, the sales
of genres like romance and
mystery tended to suffer from
her directed interests because
the public was simply busy
reading something else.
Balancing a book’s role as a
product while remaining true
to the art form is difficult,
especially in a world where
people are ever more distracted
by
their
phones
and
the
newest
thing
on
television.
While
celebrities
can
often
be the bridge between these
two
worlds,
their
constant
advertisements pushing this or
that book can change the way
we perceive the text. The book
becomes increasingly more like
a product someone is trying
to sell, instead of a piece of art
meant to help us understand the
world. And maybe it could be
argued that books have always
been products, that publishers
have always been trying to push
the sales of their new book,
but
celebrity
endorsements
seem to emphasize this point,
rather
than
draw
attention
away from it. Often times, with
their fans being such a reverent
audience, their opinions become
muddled with “expertise” and
their
recommendations
with
principles. Eventually, the books
that are promoted lose the very
individuality that made them
appealing to the celebrities in
the first place.
Creating a book club is an
art in itself, a potential key to
understanding a difficult text
or
cultivating
relationships
one might not otherwise make.
But clubs on such a wide scale,
like that of Oprah’s book club,
take on a corporate quality and
lose the intimacy that makes
reading a book with a group of
people so enjoyable. On a local
level, Ann Arbor’s own Literati
Bookstore runs a variety of book
clubs that present an interesting
understanding of the way a
book acts as both a catalyst
for relations and discussions
while also remaining a lucrative
product for the store. It’s a
perfect marriage: The monthly
clubs provide a platform for
Literati to advertise their store
and their books while the
local atmosphere of the coffee
shop preserves the personal
connection
between
books
and people, overall avoiding
the downfalls that come with
celebrity endorsements.
None of this is to say that
celebrities are without their
good
intentions.
They’ve
changed
the
publishing
landscape and the way we
experience books — we can
connect not only with each
other but with our favorite
stars through the books they
read. Nevertheless, while the
clubs are meant to encourage
reading and can often have a
positive impact on book sales,
their prevalence marks a society
that yearns to confirm the idea
that “Stars, they’re just like
us.” We shouldn’t rely solely
on Emma Roberts or Sarah
Jessica Parker to tell us what
books we should or should not
read. Part of the experience of
reading is browsing a bookstore
or a library and stumbling on
an up-and-coming author or an
old classic that may or may not
have a huge following. Even
recommendations are integral
to the process of finding a book
— it’s when books undergo
mass marketing, with the help
of celebrities, that the real
threat is evident. The process of
reading is a personal experience
and, if people continue to rely as
heavily as they do on celebrities
for
book
recommendations,
books
stand
to
lose
the
very thing that makes them
marketable.
OWN
Celebs: Did you know they
like to read? Just like us.
EMMA CHANG
Senior Arts Editor
Balancing a book’s
role as a product
while remaining
true to the art
form is difficult,
especially in a
world where
people are ever
more distracted by
their phones and
the newest thing
on television
It shouldn’t be
a surprise to
anyone that the
books celebrities
enjoy and publicly
support experience
positive public
feedback
B-SIDE
B-SIDE