This article was excerpted from, The Self-Promoting Musician: Strategies for Independent Music Success by Peter Spellman (1999, Berklee Press).

by Peter Spellman, Director, Music Business Solutions

Five recording and distribution companies dominate the global music industry. Together, they manufacture and distribute over two hundred record labels, supplying music wholesalers and retailers with about 80% of the U.S. market. They are: Universal Music Group (UMG), Warner-Elektra-Atlantic (WEA), BMG Distribution, Sony Music Entertainment, and CEMA/UNI Distribution.

On the other side of the coin are over 2,500 "indie" labels, distributed by nearly 300 independent record distributors and accounting for most of the remaining 20% of recorded music sales (small by comparison, but still over $2 billion per year). These figures, of course, do not include the thousands of new releases by artists not affiliated with any distributor but who just wanted to record and release their own music.

In contrast to non-music industries, some of which have been in existence for hundreds of years, the record industry as recently as forty years ago was, by and large, a back room affair. In one short generation it became a worldwide $40 billion industry, bigger than both the book publishing and motion picture industries. The music business grew so quickly, in fact, that no one has yet been able to figure out how to run the store. Joe Smith, former president-CEO of Capitol-EMI Music and industry veteran, confesses: "We created this business and made it up as we went along because we didn't understand all the things happening around us." And in another place, he admits: "Future planning in this business is where we're going to lunch Thursday."

But the business was changing and, in 1994, Smith decided to look into new opportunities. "I began to realize how administrative this job had become, so involved with numbers and logistics...I didn't want to do that for a long-term future."

Many have complained that the music industry is run by lawyers and accountants. The feeling is that the record business has become so concerned with the bottom line and with short-term profit that artists who once would have had time three or four albums to develop a sound and a following now have one, maybe two albums to "break" (start selling) before they lose their contract. Some in the industry would prefer to treat music like other industries treat cars and refrigerators. But music cannot be treated as such. As the creative extensions of human spirit, music will always defy attempts at control. Indeed, just when the majors catch up with a "new" music trend they often find that that the market has shifted and music lovers have moved on to something else.

Short-Term Corporate Profits vs. Long-Term Music Careers

It's important to understand that music industry staff who are involved in acquiring, developing and marketing artists are not simply working for record companies. As Tony Powell, then-managing director of MCA Records remarked in 1992: "Record companies don't see themselves as record companies anymore. They see themselves as entertainment companies." Since the late 80s these companies have been explicitly defining themselves as "global" organizations.

Record companies are concerned with developing global personalities exploitable across multiple media: through recordings, videos, films, television, magazines, books and via advertising, product endorsement and sponsorship over a range of consumer merchandise. The quest is for entertainment icons whose sound and image can be inserted into the media and communication networks which are enveloping the globe.

A look at the inner dynamics of record companies reveals some all-to-common human frailties often resulting in artists feeling constrained in their careers.

In the past, executive staff have often signed artists without reference to the opinions of other personnel within their company. However, as the costs of producing and marketing popular music have increased, and as record companies have been reorienting themselves towards entertainment rather than just music, other divisions within the corporations have begun exerting a greater influence over the type of artists which are acquired.

In addition to working with artists, all divisions of the record company are attempting to represent themselves as an indispensable component of the recording industry. The day-to-day work of dealing predominantly with one specific medium, whether the music, the image in the video, the radio media, or the press, tends to result in different staff assessing the potential of artists in different ways and developing their own agendas and goals rather than working towards a shared overall vision.

Tensions and turf battles (especially between A&R and Marketing) have, thus, become a "normal" part of the record company work climate. A major label president confided to me that when he assumed his post he was astonished to discover how little company departments actually communicated with each other on projects necessitating joint-action. One of his first acts was to call all staff members out of their offices into the hallway for an ad-hoc pow-wow just to dramatize his concern.

This incident highlights an ongoing problem for artists signed to major labels. With ten to thirty monthly releases, major labels and their respective departments cannot possibly get behind every single record. Each album may have a formal marketing plan but that plan can be cut short if another record scores a hit. Company resources are suddenly tipped in favor of the smoker and other releases will often get left in the lurch.

Further, inter-departmental rivalries and power plays lead to high job turnover. An artist's lead champion (often the one who initiated the signing) leaves the company for another and the artist is stuck, no longer a priority yet tied to the record company for up to five more years. And it doesn't have to be someone leaving that changes the artist's destiny. It may also be the arrival of a new executive with a different agenda.

Many in the New England area are familiar with the band O-Positive, an award-winning act that filled rooms, pretested its product and had strong industry representation when it signed with Epic Records in 1989. Everything was going swimmingly. A generous recording and publishing advance enabled band members to quit their day jobs and focus on the task of recording their major label debut.

Once the record was completed, however, an upper level management purge occurred at Epic. Many of the familiar executives with whom the band was dealing were gone. In addition, there was a unilateral reassessment of the label's commitment to "baby bands" . Video budgets were slashed across the board, tour support, independent radio promotion and publicity were non-existent. The record was released with no support and, as a result O-Positive's major label debut never had the chance to reach its audience.

A similar fate befell Lucinda Williams. Signed to RCA by Bob Buziak, she was wisely linked with record producer Peter Moore because he was sympathetic to her idiosyncratic blend of country, folk and blues. However, Buziak left RCA and other staff had to be found to manage his acts. Williams was allocated a young executive who suggested she work with a "hit producer", thereby exhibiting a profound lack of knowledge and misunderstanding of the genre she was working in. Seeking to transform her into a straightforward Top 40 artist, he instead created a disillusioned artist. Fortunately, Williams' career has received a second chance in the late '90s.

A lot of records are released in the hope and belief that they will succeed. However, there are occasions when staff know that a particular record is not going to make it, but are obliged to go through the motions anyway. This is done to maintain a relationship with an artist, lawyer or manager, and is variously referred to as a "political signing", "grace and favor deal", "courtesy signing", or "public relations exercise". If a manager represents a successful act, for example, then that manager can often use the incentive of future access to that act to persuade companies to sign other artists.

Alternatively, major artists themselves may be able to get deals for their friends, with senior record company staff issuing contracts merely to keep an artist happy and maintain a working relationship, rather than for any creative or commercial reasons. A marketing director at one of the labels confided that it was often easier to put out a record, rather than fight with a manger who was important to the company.

A lot of the above goes far in explaining why 9 out of 10 newly signed artists never go on to record, much less release, a second record. This kind of mortality rate would sink almost any other industry but it's acceptable in music. Sort of gives a whole new meaning to the industry phrase "breaking an act", doesn't it?. Perhaps it's time to dismantle the myth that a major recording deal is the Holy Grail of music career success.

Taking a New Approach

Artists seeking a major recording contract should seriously reconsider. It cannot be assumed that your record company will act in your best interest. Just the fact that musical artists are expected to foot the bill for the production of their music (just one of many "recoupments") should alert us to the horribly anti-artist bias prevalent in all major recording contracts. Do "signed" screenwriters, directors or actors have to pay for the production of their films? No, they don't. Do "signed" writers have to pay for the production of their books? Very rarely. The companies themselves assume this risk.

The incessant quest to repeat and clone "hits" is also ruining record companies. It's what I call the "all or nothing" investment strategy. "All or nothing" because unless the act comes screaming out of the starting blocks with a "hit" album, it will not survive past its first or second album. Running multinational record companies like MacDonalds franchises may be less stressful for the business affairs departments of these labels, however unlike hamburgers, homogenized music that looks and sounds the same is ultimately doomed to failure.

Fortunately, with or without the bureaucratic corporate empires, music will flourish simply because it doesn't need a megastructure. A number of trends are encouraging this. While the dynamic nature of the industry resists full rational study, we can discern five broad characteristics, or "megatrends", that mark the industry on the eve of the new millennium. As you read the following pages, think of ways your music career can creatively engage with each broad trend.

Increasing Demand For Music-Making

In 1967 the American record industry passed the billion dollar annual sales mark for the first time. By 1973 annual sales had reached $2 billion, and by 1978 the industry had achieved sales of more than $4 billion. Music, by then, had become the most popular form of entertainment.

Check these current facts:

• Americans spend more money buying prerecorded music and videos than they do going to movies or attending sport events.
• One out of five Americans plays a musical instrument. These musicians spend more than $5.6 billion a year on instruments, accessories and sheet music.
• The annual sale of cassettes, CDs, records and music videos combined with their primary delivery medium, broadcasting, exceed the GNP of over 80 countries in the U.N.
• We own more CD and tape players than bathtubs, refrigerators and washing machines.

Recorded music sales steadily increased from 1984 ( after a brief slump period) and have only begun leveling out over the past two years. According to the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) annual report, worldwide recorded music sales for 1998 were $40.8 billion, of which America had a 27% share, or, roughly $12 billion.

While rock and pop music account for the bulk of the music demand, let's not forget other "taste cultures". The American Symphony Orchestra League reports that there are more than 20,000 symphony concerts given every year. This particular audience now exceeds 24 million paying customers each season. Opera continues to attract its loyal audience, now being served by more than 300 professional and semiprofessional companies in this country alone. Regarding classical music, the RIAA reports that sales figures for this repertoire now exceed those for jazz. This tremendous growth in music production and consumption is not unique to the U.S. The rate of growth is even faster in some foreign countries, like Japan.

One of the fastest growing demands for music-making is now coming from visual media: television and film. With digital compression, cable channel selection will soon increase from 100 to over 300, and each new channel will require a certain amount of music. TV is already doing double-duty as a jukebox. And what about commercials? Have you noticed the increased use of "cutting edge" music and rhythms in this format?

It is interesting to note that only a small part of the time spent on musical consumption consists of that devoted to listening to tapes, CD's and albums bought in the stores by consumers, the traditional source of revenue for the music industry. An increasingly important objective of the music industry is that of acquiring a greater share of revenues from music which is "freely" consumed by people, as they listen to the radio, watch television, and so on.

The use of music in advertisements, motion pictures and television series offers a domain in which considerable revenues are generated for the music industry. We are already seeing a pronounced shift of record company income from primary sources (selling records) to secondary sources (collection of publishing and performing rights). The old music business of selling packages of music to relatively passive consumers will remain a large business for quite some time. The point is that a very different sort of music business is growing up along side it.

Music demands are also coming from places traditionally uninvolved with music. As once disparate industries converge on the digital common, the need for audio creation, production and performance talent increases. Industries as far flung as book publishing, computers and telecommunications are setting up music divisions and galvanizing new music career opportunities as a result.

The lesson? Ask not where music is sold, but where music is used. When most of us consider the best places to grow a music career we often think of the stage and the store; the stage is the place you perform your music and the store is the place you sell your music. These are the places where music has traditionally been sold. But what about the thousands of places where music is used?

Today, the uses of music have multiplied beyond our wildest dreams-- not only in movies, shows, television and jingles, but in computer video games, MIDI software, corporate and educational videos, background music services, audio books, even greeting cards! All of these uses are accomplished by a variety of licenses acquired and paid for by the user.

The best source for locating these opportunities is your own imagination. Where is music being used in your own environment? What possible outlets and inlets are waiting for you in your business, education and artistic communities? Brainstorm, make a list and start networking!

Music demand is greater now than it has ever been before, and this is great news for musicians.

Increasing Diversity of Music Making

Music pundits love to ask the question: What's the "Next Big Thing" going to be? But I don't think this question is relevant any longer. The contemporary music scene amounts to a huge mobile-home park with dozens of self-contained trailers. The few musicians who have approached the "Next Big Thing" status Pearl Jam, Green Day don't even seem to want the mantle; they're suspicious of success and its accompanying responsibilities. Add it all up, and the very concept of one artist who can unite a large pop audience and help shape and define it (ala Elvis, The Beatles, or Bruce Springsteen) seems about as dead as the 45-rpm spindle. Next Big Thing? More like "Next Modest Thing That Might Appeal to a Portion of the Demographic".

Why? Because the music market is segmenting. This is most apparent in the ever-exploding variety of music styles and sub-styles. Statistics of recorded music sales since 1987 indicate, for example, that Rock's share of the pie has plunged from 65% to 29% in less than ten years. The slack has been taken up by rival genres like country, hip-hop and the "others" category encompassing everything from ambient to zydeco. The 1990s have witnessed the number one slot in the Billboard album charts being held by artists as diverse as Metallica (heavy metal), Michael Jackson (pop), Garth Brooks (country), Nirvana (grunge), Aerosmith (rock), Snoop Doggy Dog (rap) and Ace of Base (Swedish pop).

Rapid segmentation spells trouble for the Big Five record companies, which must now work harder for a shrinking piece of the market. Segmentation does mean more markets, but they're smaller and harder to reach. Sony can't just keep selling more Mariah Carey albums; to compete globally it also has to figure out how to be a player in, say, the booming German market for "schlager" folk music. Of course, indies like Koch Germany and Fiesta, which specialize in schlager, are breaking open a lot of champagne these days.

The lesson: Find your niche. Discover an area of music that provides you with enough satisfaction for both your soul and your wallet, and then master it. When you focus on a niche you are then able to target your efforts more effectively.

This will mean, first, matching your unique personality, values and skills to a particular music career path. Don't just position yourself as a bassist; become known as "a creative bassist specializing in funk, reggae, ska and salsa." In other words, own your territory. You need not fear missing opportunities by focusing. You can always add other dimensions to your path as you grow. The point is, the market has splintered into a thousand niches. Each music genre and each music instrument has its own media culture (magazines, radio shows, web sites, newsgroups, etc.) which you can explore and use to promote your thing.

Increasing Professionalization Of Music-Making

The music industry grew so rapidly in the 1960s (owing to rock's explosion), companies could not find enough qualified people to handle their affairs. The fast talkers and "snake oil peddlers" wormed their way into executive offices, and some still hide out there. But that was then, this is now.

Over the past twenty years or so, hucksters, gamblers, and amateurs have been replaced by responsible team players-- educated musicians, trained managerial teams, degreed agents, and so on, who are paid not so much to take risks but to provide a fixed skill. The industry also became dominated by lawyers and accountants, and by the 1980s there was very little tension between musicians and "the business". Rock performers were more likely to complain about companies not exploiting them properly than to object to being "commercialized". Others, like those in the punk movement, avoided the industry altogether and developed their own DIY (do-it-yourself) network.

Professionalization has often been a bittersweet pill for musicians to swallow. The enthronement of lawyers and accountants generally resulted in an a general decline of creative direction in the larger record companies and a subsequent homogenization of pop music, Formulaic, least-common-denominator sounds began to dominate the airwaves and retail bins.

Artists in general tend to prefer a more casual approach to everything, including business. But like it or not, if you don't have your personal and business act together today, you'll find yourself with a lot of open weekends.

But this doesn't mean you can't use industry professionalization to your own advantage. Professionalization raises the expectations standard throughout the industry in terms of how business should be conducted. Professionalism means higher standards of presentation and communication, as well as greater attention to business and marketing strategy. Those with a handle on contemporary business practices will make more effective and efficient progress in the contemporary music world. Today's self-managed musician needs to understand the rules governing this game or risk being benched.

The lesson: Being "professional" means being punctual, calling when you're going to be late, following up, typing your letters on attractive stationery, watching the length of your breaks between sets, and dressing appropriately.

It also means seeking the education and training you need, and proceeding with strength. Many adult and continuing education courses are offered in basic computer training, business communications, financial management and creative marketing. You can even take courses in overcoming shyness, networking and developing your telephone chops. The sooner you acquire the tools and knowledge you need, the sooner you will make the progress you crave in your music career. See chapters two and three for numerous other ways you can develop business professionalism.

Miniaturization Of Music-Making

First came the cumbersome gramophone, then the long-playing record, next came tape players/recorders, then CDs, briefly DAT, then DCC ( digital compact cassettes) and the MD (mini-disc), and now MP-3 players no bigger than a pack of cigarettes. Everything has become smaller. Think, too, of performance from the big bands of the thirties and forties, to the seven-piece fusion groups of the sixties, to trios like The Police, and now soloists with synthesizers everything has become smaller. There are still exceptions, but generally there has been a slow but steady miniaturization of music-making.

Smallness has also become a plus for companies that produce music. As music technology becomes more accessible we are seeing a proliferation of great music from places way outside the Los Angeles/New York/Nashville nexus. Increasingly, independent production companies have emerged as the seedbeds for new talent. The "indies" are now more important than ever. Indie market share is growing. They're the ones breaking new acts, developing market niches and regionally pretesting their artists.

Music production has miniaturized.

The major record companies, on the other hand, are optimized for largeness. Today, they tend to act more like film distributors than production houses. They have the resources and capital to take new music to the masses, but little ability to create such music themselves. In other words, they are ponderous giants with little agility. Distribution is the only key holding indies back from becoming truly "independent". But it appears likely that in the near future, certainly by 2000, music distribution will have its equivalent to desktop publishing and transmission.

Technology has radically changed the relationship between creator, producer, distributor, retailer, and consumer. Within a short period of time, the music industry has transformed itself into an operation which makes use of, and relies heavily on emerging new technologies. At a grass roots level, this process began where music is created, in the recording studio, where engineers found themselves parting from analog and moving onto digital transmission.

Digital tools and resources today are vast, plentiful and increasingly more affordable: desktop multi track recorders, MIDI, digital samplers, keyboard workstations, personal computers and the World Wide Web are transforming how we create, perform, produce, market, and distribute our music. Technology has been the central force behind the evolution of popular music, and each new development has allowed the emergence of a "new sound". Yet, it does not stop here.

As digital recording formats fall in price, it is possible for anyone with a personal computer and a recordable CD to record, master, and manufacture CDs of their own music (or that of others) individually, or in quantity, for a reasonable price With computer graphic software, all CD tray inserts and other artwork could be produced as well. Recording studio, mastering facility, pressing plant and art department all on a desktop. The home studio becomes the home record company. Miniaturization again.

The lesson: The implications of these developments for musicians are nothing short of revolutionary. Technology has given young musical entrepreneurs a way to end-run the established powers. Street-level music technologies (synths, samplers, tape decks, turntables) have spawned whole new musical genres such as rap, industrial, and the many flavors of techno.

Using much-improved digital home recording equipment and independent studios, it's now possible to produce a quality album for as little as $2,000--about a hundredth of what it could cost to record at high over-head Sony or Time Warner. With a $1,299 iMac and a few hundred dollars worth of software, an artist will be able to record, mix and master their album, then make it available on their web site to fans throughout the world. Miniaturization of music technology in enabling musicians to once again have complete control over the creative processes of production and promotion.

Sensualization of Music-Making

By "Sensualization" I don't just mean eroticization (though this is certainly part of it), but the growing involvement of other senses in music production and consumption beyond the auditory. Music-making is becoming increasingly multi-media and, therefore, multi-sensory. As already mentioned, record companies are repositioning themselves as entertainment companies. The new goal of these companies is to exploit their artist/stars on a global scale and create "synergies" (i.e. powerful alliances) across other "divisions"within the parent Corporation. Ideally they want stars who can sing a song, star in a video, perform on stage, act in a movie, write a book, schmooze with TV culture and, if at all possible, develop clothing, perfume and food-product lines as well.

Here's a trick question: Want to take a guess at which is the largest radio station in the world? Ironically, it's a television station! MTV was born August 1, 1981, the brainchild of Warner Communications. By 1998 it was reaching a potential audience of more than 100 million viewers in 70 countries, injecting a lethargic record industry with a fiscal shot in the arm. Music Television has influenced not only the music business, but film, advertising, television, and virtually all aspects of youth culture, leaving the Washington Post to call it "perhaps the most influential single cultural product of the decade." Whoa.

So music video is here to stay. Visuals are now a necessary accompaniment to the music from the major label's perspective; and there's no doubt about video's power to create success. Janet Jackson, Paula Abdul, Milli Vanilli, and Bobby Brown where all wallowing in obscurity before MTV exposure sent their records to multi-platinium status. Of course, the ultimate example of a multi-media music career is Madonna. After inking a $60 million deal with Warner Brothers, the music diva's cultural repertoire rapidly expanded to include print, film, fashion, music, and most of all, her music videos. As mini-events that artfully combine her music and persona, Madonna's more than 75 music videos have contributed largely to her success as multi-media star.

Music video, however, is really just the tip of a huge iceberg that is destined to completely transform the experience of music-making. Amazing, almost science-fictionlike developments are changing the basis of our interactions with creative technology, on a fundamental level. Computers equipped with three-dimensional sound and visuals can now immerse the user in an artificial (i.e. virtual) reality, where fantasy and magic replace the accepted rules of nature. At the same time, interactive media (CD-I, etc.) are bringing exciting new forms of entertainment, education and creativity to life.

These capabilities are revolutionizing our ideas about computers and music, irreversibly transforming the process of artistic and musical creation, and providing new ways to distribute and present multi-media productions. The first crop of virtual reality and interactive music products are in the market. With them, we are able to create software-based instruments and controllers that are free from the constraints of physical law.

But virtual reality can't free us from the constraints of our own imagination and creativity. In the end, the music still has come from us. The point is, however, to become aware of this trend and not to be caught with your head in the sand. The new technologies present tremendous opportunities for an unprecedented "sensualization" of musical expression.

The lesson: It's a 'multimedia' world and creative alliances which cross industries are the key to survival. I had the gratifying experience of seeing what this means while working on a couple of multimedia projects this past year.

My partner and I (collectively known as Friend Planet) teamed up with some microbial scientists who were developing a middle-school educational project called "Microcosmos" at a local university. We provided the soundtrack to a film about the "dance" of microorganisms in pond water. Being a National Science Foundation grant-supported project, it paid well. The beauty of the project lay in the unusual collaboration we were involved in. Audiovisual producers, scientists, musicians, film directors and educators people who did not normally traffic with each other joined together to create the work.

A second Friend Planet project involved scoring a video game designed to educate diabetic kids about self-care. It turns out a large Boston hospital has a special division that develops multimedia products for chronically ill children. There we were: musicians collaborating with physicians, computer animators, programmers and interface designers. Unusual and highly satisfying. Multi-media. Multi-sensual.

Globalization of Music-Making

Ever since the inception of Armed Forces Radio during WWII, American popular music has been penetrating every nook and cranny on the planet. As of 1999, one of every four people on the planet already are able to watch MTV, and its owner, Viacom Corp., is predicting that the cable channel will bring in more money internationally within eight years than it makes domestically. A basic characteristic of the international music industry has been its domination by American interests - not only in terms of product and flow, but also in its legal, political, and economic practices. Simultaneously, the U.S. share of recorded music sales has dropped to 27%, from over 60% just thirty years ago.

Other countries are asserting their own sounds, a trend reflected by the structures of major record company ownership. CBS is now part of the Japanese Sony empire; RCA has been absorbed by Bertlesman Group (BMG), a German-based company whose central interests are publishing and distributing books and magazines. As the other three "majors" (Thorn-EMI and Unigram) are based in Great Britain and Canada respectively, WEA (Warner/Elektra/Atlantic) is the only American Major label left.

Most of these mergers and acquisitions took place during the 1980s. The domination of the "West over the Rest" in the distribution of internationalized popular music is still, however, inarguable. The purchase of CBS Records by a Japanese company has not altered the Anglo-American content of internationalized music. Sony bought CBS primarily to acquire its popular music repertoire. However, the direction of profit flow will most certainly be affected. Many people have, understandably, expressed concern about the largely unidirectional flow of musical product around the world, fearing it will adversely affect cultural diversity.

While the globalization of the music industry appears at first glance to spell world cultural homogenization, the reality shows a different picture. What we see in almost every country are local musicians who are producing new combinations of musical elements and who are adding to global cultural diversity. They are not all sounding alike. In fact, within and among countries, there is an amazing diversity of music as creative musicians experiment with new forms and sounds. From Bulgaria to Boston, Zaire to Martinique and New York to Paris, pop is going global. As never before, exotic imports and weird new hybrids are flourishing: Polish reggae, Moroccan flamenco, even Cambodian heavy metal are on the rise.

Additionally, peripheral musicians are becoming indirectly acquainted with each other's music through small, self-production recording and distribution processes that do not depend upon the mediation of the core industry. The result of these interactions is a new eclectic approach to music making and marketing.

In observation of this new eclecticism, the core industry itself has begun to look to all cultures for potential raw materials and consequently its former rock and roll center has splintered into many sub-category fragments. Music has become increasingly experimental and fragmented while at the same time its once diverse and exotic elements are becoming more widely familiar, more accepted, and more predictable. The richness of world-cultural music and their arrival on these shores is perhaps one of the most refreshing trends in the music industry today (at least in this author's opinion); and the movement will continue.

The lesson: A shrinking planet combined with far-reaching communications technologies allows today's artists to mount a global presence. Internet-based music services are springing up like mushrooms in a moist meadow, offering unsigned bands the opportunity to hawk their wares to an increasingly wired global audience.

Even traditional "lo-fi" international touring is more a possibility today than ever before. As already noted, the world's soundtrack for the last forty years has been American popular music, primarily rock 'n' roll and blues, but other styles as well. American pop has become our passport. The world wants to hear American pop sung in English by native speakers. In Tahiti, for example, as in many parts of the world, tourism plays a major part in the local economy and the majority of tourists are French and English-speaking, hence a great market has developed for American pop performed in English. I know an American singer from Massachusetts who is currently in Thailand fronting an all-Thai blues band and earning upwards of $3000 per week! The whole world is indeed your stage.

Increasing demand, diversity, professionalization, miniaturization, sensualization, and globalization of music-making: six huge currents flowing through the new music industry. Of course, there are many other smaller trends within each of these "megatrends" we could examine as well. For example, some of the controversies surrounding copyright vis-a-vis the Internet, or the much ballyhooed censorship rifts that occasionally rock the boat.

But what I wanted to do first was paint, with broad brushstrokes, a bit of the big picture for the musical community to consider. No one starts a business or launches a career in an industry without first understanding that industry its strengths, its weaknesses and its overall direction. Only with a context can you know your place within it and plan the smartest path possible for the achievement of your goals.

In the end, music career success depends on three things and, though not one for a simplistic solution, the following formula I think sums it up well:

TALENT + INFORMATION x ENERGY = SUCCESS

Forward!

by Peter Spellman

Director of Career Development at Berklee College of Music, Boston, and author of The Self-Promoting Musician: Do-it-Yourself Strategies for Independent Music Success (Berklee Press). You can find him at Music Business Solutions.

Copyright © 1999 - 2003 MUSIC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, all rights reserved. Text, graphics, and HTML code are protected by US and International Copyright Laws, and may not be copied, reprinted, published, translated, hosted, or otherwise distributed by any means without explicit permission.