do we really love indie music?

a few people have been speaking out recently in blogs and the like on the current position of the working artist. here's a considered response, with appropriate links...

we don't like to complain. we have a great life. we get to play the music we write to people who like to listen (most of the time), travel all over the place, meet great folk who become good friends and generally do what we love. we're lucky. it would be a mistake though to think that for that reason we don't have a hell of a time making it happen. it's hard work doing this.

not that it isn't worth it - and, for that matter, not that it shouldn't be hard work. it makes sense that you should have to earn the priviledge. except that sometimes it's hard to work out what you're supposed to do to keep your way of life sustainable. talking to a few people about what we do always throws up some interesting contradictions that continue to puzzle a lot of musicians.

the argument that i often raise - that doing this is 'self-indulgent' and that we musicians shouldn't expect to be supported to do what we want to do - is invariably dismissed by people who argue that providing music is an important job, that people require it, and that it is important to make sure it continues. that's an encouraging thing to hear, but these same people will easily agree that there is too much music out there, and will happily admit to acquiring their music without parting with any cash, be it legally or illegally. 

the democratisation of musicianship can only be a good thing. the fact that now anyone who wants to can record and disseminate their work is a great thing, at least on paper. most are agreed that we don't want to return to a world of music that is dominated by the major labels' ditcatorship, but somehow the genuine differences between this model and the support of independents at the point of delivery haven't become clear yet. indie really is a healthy place for a band to be and it certainly has helped us and made us happy to be at the helm of our own ship, but it changes some things quite radically.

wasn't interesting independent music exactly what we all wanted when we said we were tired of the major labels? what we haven't yet realised is that these musicians who have been 'freed from the tyranny of EMI' (or whatever) can't do what they're doing without our engagement. the irony of it is that while people are delighted to see their money go directly to artists instead of to steve jobs or a major label, they are more reluctant to spend it in those circumstances.

i just read an excellent blog post written by a friend of mine. it ends with a simple sentence:

"there’s some fantastic folk music out there; it just needs your support."

because, amazingly, we seem still to be behaving as if the old model was current. my friend's blog expresses frustration at the fact that people are still only aware of the bands with the commercial support and the big publicity machines. with fewer people paying for recorded music in the first place, and concert attendances down (recent tweets and news stories from imogen heap make for a sobering read), there is no way that artists can pay for the cynical publicity machine that still seems to be required. the capital simply isn't there.


here's a tweet that was posted recently by another excellent blogger:

"shall we all chip in and pay for a national marketing campaign for a band who really deserves it? seems to be all it takes for chart success." 

it's sad to think that these guys might be right - that you can pretty much buy record sales. that seems to defeat the object a little though... and it doesn't fix a problem that runs much deeper than that.

we are so used to buying into certainties that investing in a band you like just because you like them is hard to come to terms with now. what if they aren't cool? what if the zeitgeist disagrees with you? we end up then with the problem outlined in the blog i linked to above - that only those bands with the big PR budgets can galvanise the support they need. sadly, what those PR budgets generally mean for the artists is a choice between huge debt or major label involvement. this results not so much in us supporting indie music and turning our backs on the big machine, as buying into the impression that that's what we're doing without taking on the 'danger' of actually making an individual statement of taste. i suspect that even the bands who are managing to maintain a solvent profile would appreciate not having to, so they could actually have a go at living off the resulting sales.


we really do love what we do - we, and countless others like us, will surely always find a way of carrying on with it and avoiding the world of the 'proper job'. it's therefore surely dangerous and unhealthy to see these complications as anything more than a small part of our situation. i do think it's our own responsibility as artists to create a sustainable model and keep it going. my friend is right about one thing though, and that is that if people want the results of the indie scene to still be available to them we will have to find some way of supporting the musicians (who often engage and inspire those who then go on to channel the mainstream) - and it would be nice to do that before they died, for a change...

finally, we coudn't recommend more highly this article, which adds to this debate in a much more concise and literate manner.  please have a read... 



http://www.kirstymcgee.com
 
http://www.facebook.com/kirstymcgeemusic
 
http://kirstymcgee.bandcamp.com
 
http://www.hobopop.com