Tweet, damn you!

[rolanni]

Am I the only one who is. . .unsettled by this article?

I can see a "label" requesting that its artists engage with their fans -- promotion is promotion, after all. But to turn down a band, not because their music doesn't mesh with house style, but because the band members would prefer not to do social networking (aka "would prefer to focus exclusively on their music"), seems like somebody's got the cart before the horse.

A good band -- or a good book, for that matter -- will garner fans. A bad band -- or the author of a bad book -- will not garner sustained sales just because they're on Twitter.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that some artists shouldn't engage with their fans. It's not that they're bad people, but they might be abrasive, or prone to panic attacks, or, yanno boring. Ghod, She knows, I'm boring. It's hard to be interesting when most of your life revolves around sitting in front of a computer, telling lies to yourself.

I accept (grudgingly) that one must promote, but I utterly reject the theory that I must Do It All. What works best is to do those things that you are either (1) good at or (2) like -- humans being what they are, those two things are very likely to be the same. When you do something that makes you happy, people -- aka, your fans -- will pick that up, and they'll be happy, too. If you're doing something (like, for me, tweeting) that you loathe, and that gives you a headache just thinking about it -- your fans will pick up on that, too. And they will be distressed, and not be happy right along with you.

Connecting with your fans in positive ways is what's wanted; not connecting with your fans, even if you'd rather throw yourself from the top of a speeding train.

...I am also worried about a world in which an artist's natural inclination to "focus exclusively" on their art is held up to ridicule. Artists make art; that's what we do, first and most importantly. The rest? Is icing.

Comments

[blythe025.livejournal.com]

Good points, all.

What really disturbs me about this article is that it's inherently slanted toward the Executives point of view. The author didn't even bother trying to present the other perspective fairly, so that the reader can determine for themselves. Instead, the tone is that the artists are silly hipsters and the executives are wise to the ways of the world. Not exactly good and unbiased reporting.

[katmoonshaker.livejournal.com]

Maybe they need ghost-tweeters.

[scrapcat.livejournal.com]

Will there never be privacy again? Even on facebook, people who are NOT celebrities post every little thing they do. Do we really want ALL of our lives out there for others to see? I'm beginning to feel really sorry for "celebrities."

[reedrover]

Some of the article comments came right back to your points. Another point made was that the label/agent is supposed to be doing marketing, and if social networking is marketing, it should be the label's problem.

Also? If the artist is good enough, fans will be self-supporting with minimal "food" from the artists. Consider when you discovered that there was already a Liaden fan group and we had already named Plan B before you found us?

[jelazakazone.livejournal.com]

I think the point they are missing is that 20somethings in general are not interested in social networking. I have a sister who is 23 and she doesn't do LJ or facebook or twitter. She has accounts on the first two, but never uses them. She text messages and that's it.

I'm always wary about contacting artists, personally. I have been disappointed to discover things that bothered me about authors I adored.

[shana.livejournal.com]

I think there should be some online activity -- a website with a schedule of gigs, samples of music and where to buy stuff, at a minimum.

But demanding that someone who is text averse spend a lot of time generating text... that way leads tears.

[brock-tn.livejournal.com]

The "music business," unfortunately, stopped being about the music years ago.

Yes, artists DO have to communicate with their fans. The late Robert Heinlein used to use 3x5 cards, typed single spaced on both sides of the card, with just enough blank space left for a signature. This allowed for some meaningful comments while enforcing brevity. I suppoe that you could call it an analog equivalent to tweeting.

Where the record company executives are making their error is assuming that the digital age means that they won't ever have to teach an artist or a group about relations with their fan base. And that simply isn't true. Artists can get focused on their work, and part of the job of managing an artist is to point out that the artist MUST devote a certain amount of time to his or her fans, even if the artist would far rather be doing something else.

Because without the fans, nobody gets paid.

Hmm...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

I note this as yet another variation of middlemen expecting creative people to do more of the work, often for less of the money. I keep thinking, if I'm going to do all the work, I'm going to keep all the money. If all I have to do is hand over a manuscript, well, that's different; I'll concede a portion of the money for not having to handle all the subsequent details. But the more I get asked to do after I'm done writing, the grouchier I get if someone is taking a big chunk of the money.

[lagilman]

If you don't enjoy it and/or aren't good at it, or it makes life so rushed you can't create, then for gods' sake don't do it!

But there does need to be some sort of "public presence" for the fans to come to, even if it's a once-a-week post done up by the intern saying "this is what we're up to/where we'll be, hope to see you there."

In the old movie studio system, they had someone specifically paid to do that [fan mail, dropping tidbits in gossip columnists ears, etc). Those days? Long gone. But the connection still has to be maintained. That's the nature of the PR beast.

The advantage to web 2.0 is that there are pretty simple ways to deal with it that can be semi-automated. Saying 'we're too creative to be part of the selling' is just as bad as someone insisting you do it at all. IMO and .02 worth.

Devil's Advocate

[redpimpernel.livejournal.com]

In business, as in health care, and many other areas of our lives a person has to be their own advocate. We are always being asked to produce more 'product' with fewer resources.

Advertising seems to be one of those 80/20 or 90/10 scenarios, where 10-20% of the authors, musicians, artists get 80-90% of their agents/publicists/editors/labels resources. What do the bulk of the artists do for themselves then? They make their art, and they hope they 1) find their fans and 2) that those fans spread word of mouth to garner more fans. One way to encourage that is through any of the myriad forms of social networking, which does NOT just mean Facebook and Twitter, it also includes cons & book signings (gasp! in person networking!), LJ, book clubs, yada yada yada. In the electronic age there are more outlets, but Twitter & Facebook are the two with the highest media profiles.

Rolani hits the nail on the head. Artists shouldn't have to do it all, but most of them will want to or like doing at least some of it. Facebook and Twitter can be read/followed by unlimited numbers (say thousands), on LJ you reach hundreds, at a con or book signings you can reach dozens to a few hundred, etc. It's numerically clear why upper management thinks everyone should be promoting themselves in the electronic formats. Lee & Miller are savvy, between them they do have outlets in all of the self-promtional pools.

Personally, I enjoy Rolani's blogs much more than I would the occasional tweet or facebook update. Not having the time or the inclination to drop constant post-its into the twitterverse is just fine. I much prefer the pace of the robust paragraphs that Rolani blogs over the incessant drivel of frequent tweeters. I do not need nor want to know what *anyone* is thinking/feeling/ every second of the day.

[star-gazersusan.livejournal.com]

Hmm seems to me that if they can hire someone to creat a web site; then they can hire someone to do the the blog for the artist(s). They could also probably do the LJ's, facebooks, and tweet updates too. Simple solution and it gets another person employed!

[keristor.livejournal.com]

The big record labels have seriously lost it. And they know it, which is why they are in such a panic about any change, they want to go on being the lords of the artists while doing less work themselves. Time was a band would pay the agent andf the label for promoting the band, now the label still wants their cut but wabts the band to run publicity as well.

I actually disagree that the creative person nees to 'promote' at all, except to the people who will be putting up the money and selling the product (the agent, and then the agent's job is to promote it to the publisher). I think that the only authors whose books I have bought because I have known them online are Lee and Miller (back when I was on sff.net newsgroups), all the others have been from personal recommendations, "if you like that you'll like this" type things in bookstores, and from libraries (there was a time -- 40 or so years ago -- when I read every SF author the library stocked; some only one book and I decided they weren't to my taste). I don't think that's at all unusual, I don't think I've heard anyone say they bought a book or a CD because of the author's tweets.

Certainly for most of my musical input I have no personal contact at all. Much as I would like to have met Dietrich Buxtehude or Georg Phillip Telemann or Johann Sebastian Bach it's a bit late, and even many of the performances I like are by people no longer living. Heck, too many of even the rock legends are no longer with us. I don't want to read their biographies, or hear what they had for dinner. (Friends are a different matter, and on LJ that sort of thing is interesting because they are people about whom I care, but I still wouldn't read their books if I didn't like the books no matter how much I liked the person.)

[(Anonymous)]

Strikes me that neither of the execs quoted knows squat about Art - what they know is Business. Someone should tell them that artists communicate and connect with their audience through their work... that's what art IS.

I've known artists who were gregarious and artists who were reclusive, but the quality of their work and the response of their audiences to the art were not determined by their sociability or the access they afforded to their fans.

Sure, if you're a musician, it's probably a good idea to find ways to keep fans informed of tour dates and upcoming releases, but I thought that's what labels/promoters did. It hardly requires the artist themselves to be on Facebook, Myspace or Twitter (all of which I abhor). Sounds to me like these execs are trying to come up with yet more ways to screw maximum profits out of an artist with minimum effort on their own part.

[aspidites.livejournal.com]

Sorry for the anonymous post, my work computer keeps logging out of LJ!

interconnects

[stick-breaker.livejournal.com]

I think the Label made a valid point. the Label does not care about quality of music. their only care is money. as American idol has proven, anyone can be a star, you just need marketing. the label decides to make the most money by selecting musicians that self promote. music is the byproduct the product is money.

Re: interconnects

[kinzel.livejournal.com]

Secret: I have never watched American Idol. It was on once at a bar ... but I still didn't watch it. Bars are (or used to be before they became video-walls) great place to watch live music. If more people did it, we have more good music and record companies could make more money.

Well, yes and no

[bookmobiler.livejournal.com]

Someone should tell them that artists communicate and connect with their audience through their work... that's what art IS.

Art, what ever the medium, has to be the

main

method of communication. If an art form doesn't speak to its audience it (or its artist) isn't going to be around for long.

Artist who are passionate about their work will usually do almost anything to promote their work. This is why artist of all kinds audition or perform every chance they get. They constantly are on the look out for the next gig. Visual artists seek places to exhibit and authors keep sending out that great American novel despite accumulating rejection slips.

All of this effort is at least initially self directed. It will usually be be accomplished in the manner that is most comfortable to the artist. Anything else interferes with the creative process. When third parties get involved (agents, publishers, galleries et al) they have to remember not to cramp the artist's style.

On the other hand artists who will not promote themselves tend to get discovered posthumously. Or not.

Wow, that's cheeky

[(Anonymous)]

The label is/are idiots. Lazy idiots. If the band gets popular enough, their FANS will tweet about them. Especially if parts
of the gigs wind up on Youtube (which is a given, these days - it's how I found the Tartan Terrors again).

Twitter is free advertising but you have to have a certain mindset about it...it's not for everybody.
Lauretta@ConstellationBooks

Internet coincidences

[bookmobiler.livejournal.com]

I ran across this on A.Word.A.Day (http://wordsmith.org/words/potlatch.html) It seemed so apposite I can't resist sharing.



A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
Twin Mystery. To many people artists seem / undisciplined and lawless. / Such laziness, with such great gifts, / seems little short of crime. / One mystery is how they make / the things they make so flawless; / another, what they're doing with / their energy and time. -Piet Hein, poet and scientist (1905-1996)

[janni.livejournal.com]

The thing is, we don't even have any data (that I've seen) on how much of a difference social networking really makes -- we take "artists must promote themselves" as an act of blind faith.

Two of the bestselling authors in YA/MG right now -- Suzanne Collins and Rick Riordan -- have hardly any web presence as far as I can tell. It's not clear to me that Stephenie Meyer is a huge blogger -- it is clear to me that J.K. Rowling isn't.

And too many new writers right now are just stressed out about this online social media thing, and that can't be good ... makes for doing a poor job with it, if nothing else.