Is it really the rise of the niche nation? Or is it just easier to find bands to commercially exploit?

After reading Blogsauce's blog "It's a mad world" it got me thinking about when niche is no longer niche. For me the word niche equals unique or special. It is niche because it is not generally accepted by mainstream culture. I am a self professed music snob. As soon as a band gets noticed by the masses it's no longer special to me anymore. I'm no longer interested. In fact my love soon turns to annoyance and even hatred.

The interactive and participatory nature of the internet through online communities, DIY music production and file sharing networks, as well as media convergence across a variety of platforms including the proliferation of music into television shows and movies has allowed niche artists to gain a larger audience. But does this audience truly appreciate the unique and special nature of what they're listening to? When a band is popular with the masses they seem to lose a part of who they are. They're just another "hit" played 10 times a day on commercial radio, listened to by teeny boppers following the latest "hit" like sheep. Ironically, 106.9's slogan is "sounds different". What's different about it? All they do is play the Top 40 on repeat. That's not different. That's not niche. That's not unique.

There are countless examples of when niche artists are scooped up by mainstream media and transformed into artificial shells of their former unique selves. Snow Patrol's rise to fame through the use of "Chasing Cars" in the Grey's Anatomy Season 2 Finale is one example. My cousin used to be a huge fan of Snow Patrol but has since lost interest because she was so outraged when people came into her music store the day after Grey's Anatomy and asked her "Do you have that song 'If i lay here...something something' ooh i can't remember it". It's offensive towards the band and what they represent when their rise to fame comes in such an artificial mainstream way. Mark Everett, better known as "E" from The Eels said that allowing the movie "Road Trip" to use his song "Goddamn right, it's a beautiful day" was the greatest regret he ever made in his career. "I didn't want this brand new song to be associated with a frat-boy movie, of all things. That's not a beautiful day, and not a good first impression for my new song and album." (Everett, 2008, p170). He said that the feeling of maintaining his integrity was worth more than the millions of dollars to be gained from "selling out" (Everett, 2008, p171).

Anderson says that we've entered the rise of the niche nation. However, to truly "make it" in the industry musicians more often than not still have to conform to the "hit" style. Perhaps the bigges t sell out of 2007 was Kate Miller-Heidke. Take a look at her before andafter videos. The most ironic part about it is that one of her songs pokes fun at Australian Idol for producing artificially created musicians. On a recent tour in Brisbane, Melbourne up and coming musician, Whitley, introduced his song on NOVA 106.9 as "Hi i'm Whitley. You're listening to more spoon fed commercial crap for the masses". It's frustrating that for musicians like Whitley to really make it in the music industry they have to enter the "dark side" and participate in the mainstream culture that they hate.

According to Anderson "The Niche is now King". But is it more a case of the King being able to find the niche more easily and then turning it into the traditional commercial mainstream "hit"?


Reference

Everett, M. 2008. Things the Grandchildren Should Know. London: Little Brown.

Music 2.0. Get excited!

Through my fabulous networks on del.icio.us i stumbled across an interesting video on Music 2.0 today by Gerd Leonhard. The words 'music' and '2.0' in the same sentence seems to be a pretty evolutionary concept, or somewhat overdue one whichever way you look at it. It's no secret that the music industry has turned a blind eye to the new interactive, participatory capabilities of web 2.0 and have suffered huge financial losses as a result (see here). Blender.com found the number one record-company screw up of all time to be when they sued Napster out of existence because of their hell bent pursuit on protecting copyright. How silly they were. That blunder has seen them unable to capitalize on the tens of millions of users of file-sharing services who, after the fall of Napster, dispersed to other illegal downloading sites on the internet.

If the record industry intends to survive they really need to open their eyes and take a good look at their surroundings. We no longer live in an age of consumers and producers (see Bruns' theory of produsage). There has been a profound shift in recent years from closed and passive to open, social and uncontrolled patterns of music sharing. We are active. We know what we want and we know how to get it cheap, fast and simple. If record industries are smart they will find a way to profit from our new music consumption patterns. So is music 2.0 the answer they've been looking for...or at least should be looking for?

Gerd Leonhards basic argument is to sell music in the way that people actually want to buy it. Essentially through a "click". Gerd argues that companies must licence access to music not control it like they have in the past. His catch phrase "consumers will pay with attention" is quite apt in explaining what he means. Music is in the network so put the money into the network too. Companies can generate money through clicks on advertising, concert recordings, social networking sites, tickets, webcasts and concert recordings. In Gerds vision for the future there will be no closed and locked communities like Itunes. For example, nobody subscribes to Google and pays a fee to look at and download information. Google makes money through its content. Very successfully too! It's net revenue last year was 3.7 billion dollars. Not too shabby. Google already has enough features to live your own virtual life through the site so why can't it offer us music too?

So why should record companies listen to this guy? Firstly, he knows what he's talking about. Gerd has spent over twenty-five years in the technology and entertainment industries. Recently co-authoring the critically acclaimed book "The Future of Music" where the term music 2.0 was coined. Secondly, he's not the only one saying there is a need for change. Chris Anderson warns of the slow demise of record companies in the rise of the niche nation. He states that "the traditional model of marketing and selling music no longer works". Technology has given people a new way to obtain music which doesn't involve being swallowed in the avalanche of mass marketed hits by record industries.

Gerds theory is interesting and believable. Social networking sites like myspace allow us to be produsers, networking and sharing things online. It seems ridiculous not to expect people to share music in these environments when sharing is such a huge part of the music culture. All we need is for record companies to let go of their control. In the words of Chris Anderson, "MTV and Tower Records no longer decide who wins. You do".