Screw quality?

When I tell people that I've built a catalog of 25,000 tracks, their initial response is often, "Well, that probably means the quality is low. It's likely music of lesser value." Most people may not say it out loud, but I can sense their thoughts because that was my initial reaction too. 

For some reason, we tend to believe that an artist who produces a large volume of work is perceived as less valuable and of lower quality than an artist who focuses on a select few "perfect" artworks. Why is that? And is it a valid assumption? Does creating more content truly diminish our value as artists?

Have you heard the story about the pottery class? The story goes:

Once upon a time, there was a pottery teacher who decided to conduct a unique experiment.

At the start of the year, she divided the class into two groups. The first half was instructed to collaborate throughout the year to create one perfect piece of pottery. The second group was tasked with working together to produce as many pieces as possible.

The first group would be graded based on the quality of their single piece, while the second group would be graded on the quantity of pieces they created.

By the end of the year, the first group had crafted one nearly perfect piece. In contrast, the second group had amassed a large pile, primarily consisting of poor-quality pieces. The ones at the bottom of the pile were notably subpar, but curiously, those in the middle were somewhat better.

The teacher questioned the students about any differences in their approach when making the pieces in the middle.

"Did you start prioritizing quality over quantity?"

The students revealed that they had made no changes; in fact, they felt they were producing mediocre pottery much more rapidly than at the beginning.

Remarkably, the pieces toward the top of the pile kept improving.

The teacher climbed a ladder to reach the piece at the very top, crafted in the last minutes of the last day of class. She took it down admirably and placed it next to the nearly perfect piece created by the first group. The students gasped in amazement; the first piece didn't come close to the quality of the second.

One student from the second group asked the teacher, "How is this possible? We weren't even trying to make a good piece, and we created a masterpiece."

The teacher, with a knowing smile, replied, "By progressing from mistake to mistake with great enthusiasm, you have ultimately created a masterpiece. Now live your life in the same manner. Move forward with great enthusiasm, toss your failures on the pile without concern. Eventually, you will create a masterpiece with your life."

The moral of this story and its relevance to you as a music creator?

Volume is not a bad thing. It’s a good thing. We've come to believe that the “correct” way for an artist to live is to release and album with 10-15 songs every second year, or to release them as as a row of singles, and then release the album as collection afterwards. 

Let’s say a “standard” artist would average five album releases throughout his/her career, totaling 50-100 songs. But what would happen if that artist changed tactics and instead released one new song every week? Would that make him/her a better or worse artist? Would the quality of the music go up or down?

After 25 years in the music industry, I was so accustomed to the “normal” way of doing things that it took me a while to adjust to new ideas. I began pondering what would happen if artists like Paul McCartney, Michael Jackson, The Weeknd, and Ariana Grande switched up their creative careers, increasing their output tenfold or even a hundredfold? Meaning they would release 500-1000 songs over the span of their career. Would the quality of their work really decline? Would the audience appreciate their songs less?

Personally, I’m confident that the audience would still fall in love with their music. Perhaps not all songs equally, but that’s not the case now either. I believe a few songs would gain more traction, and the algorithm would amplify those based on feedback, likes, and personal playlist adds from the audience.

This is, of course, only a theoretical scenario, but it challenges the traditional approach to music releases. Releasing one song every week instead of following the conventional album cycle could have both positive and negative implications.

On the positive side, this approach could lead to:

1. **Increased Visibility:** More frequent releases may keep artists consistently in the public eye, potentially leading to increased visibility and a broader audience.

2. **Adaptation to Streaming Algorithms:** Streaming platforms often reward consistent content. Releasing more frequently could align with algorithmic preferences, leading to more favorable placement in playlists and recommendations.

3. **Continuous Audience Engagement:** Weekly releases provide a constant stream of new content, keeping fans engaged and connected to the artist.

However, potential challenges could include:

1. Quality Concerns: The rapid release schedule might raise concerns about the quality of each individual song. Artists may face challenges maintaining a high standard with such frequent output.

2. Artistic Depth: Albums allow artists to explore themes and create a cohesive narrative. Releasing singles might sacrifice the depth and storytelling potential that albums offer.

3. Audience Saturation: Bombarding the audience with weekly releases could lead to saturation and fatigue, potentially diluting the impact of each song.

Ultimately, the success of such an approach would depend on various factors, including the artist's style, audience preferences, and the ability to consistently produce high-quality content. It's an intriguing idea that challenges the norms of the music industry and the perception of artistic output.

The old-school framework, based on releasing an album every second year cycle, originated from the constraints imposed by limited physical formats at the start of our industry.

As the music industry evolved, so did the formats for distributing music. In the early days, vinyl records were the primary mode of music consumption, often accompanied by cassette tapes. These formats had a limited capcity in terms of number of songs. These physical medium also influenced the album-centric release strategy, as artists and record labels adapted to the capacities and preferences of these formats.

The advent of CDs in the 1980s brought a shift in the landscape. With the increased durability and compact size of CDs, artists had more flexibility in structuring their releases. However, the album-centric model persisted, in part due to industry traditions and consumer expectations. Fans had grown accustomed to the idea of a collection of songs packaged into a single cohesive album.

It wasn't until the digital revolution and the rise of online platforms that a significant transformation occurred. The emergence of MP3s, digital downloads, and eventually streaming services disrupted the traditional album cycle. The ability to release and consume individual songs independently from a physical or even digital album, without massive fabrication and distribution costs, opened up new possibilities for artists.

This shift in technology has allowed for more frequent releases and diverse strategies, challenging the conventional norms that had shaped the industry for decades. But as artists and music creatives, we still tend to work on the slow cycle, not fully taking advantage of the possibilities and alternatives that lies in a higher creative output.

So, back to you, the music creator. Why are we programmed to chase the golden nuggets, the hits, and why have we accepted that only 10% of our creative output is being served to the world? 

The number one factor is the industry and the focus on hit songs. How did all of that start? 

During the 1950s and 60s the Detroit based record label Motown Records churned out hit after hit, which also helped the songwriter and producer role become very attractive. As their songs was turned into hits on the radio, and started selling significant numbers of albums, these people made a lot of money, and since then “chasing hits” has been the main focus for most music creators in the “pop world”. 

I apologize for making a generalization, and I appreciate your patience as we proceed. Hang with me.

Every day there are thousands of music creators trying to come up with musical and lyrical ideas, hoping to create a golden bullet - a hit song. Songwriters and producers meet for writing sessions, with the artist in the room, or in most cases; without the artist in the room. Everyone is hoping to create a new masterpiece that will be picked up by the industry and eventually the fans, and generate money for the creators and all the parties involved. 

Writing hits has become the dream. Writing that one song, or more, that makes a mark and elevates you to the top of the mountain, - careerwise and financially. To be creatively recognized and have an impact on as many listeners as possible, while making a lot of money has become the dream for many music creators. 

And it’s not only the music creators, the whole music industry is focused on hits. Golden bullets. The songs that move the needle on modern culture and generate a lot of money for everyone with a share of the copyright. 

That’s why you'll find the bulk of music creators, competing to enter the Billboard Hot100 and the Global Spotify Top50 or as a soundtrack to a major movie. We all aim for the top of the mountain. For that one song that is going to make money rain down on us. The industry is chasing that one hit. That one album. That one artist. 
 

Playing the Odds Game

For any music creator involved in the music industry, success often hinges on probabilities, - odds. Unfortunately, the odds are not in your favor, unless your name is Max Martin of course. 

Millions of music creators have tried, but only a few have succeeded. Even fewer have managed to sustain a stable income, enough to provide for their families in the long run.

As much as I love this creative side of the business, I want to share a sobering truth with you. Most successful music creators aren't as wealthy as you think they are. I know numerous songwriters and producers with several Top 50 hits who are struggling to make ends meet. Why? Because by the time your publisher, label, manager, and co-writers have taken their share, there's not as much money left as you might expect. And after the initial surge of income, the earnings gradually decline. After a few years, royalty payouts may amount to a nice Christmas bonus, but not enough to support your family.

The income from a hit song, or even a moderately successful one, diminishes rapidly. This makes it challenging for songwriters to rely solely on royalties a few years after the song's peak, unless they're consistently churning out hits for artists like Taylor Swift, Coldplay, or Beyoncé. Let's consider them the exceptions.

Before you can retire from the business, you'll need to work diligently for many years, stacking up enough song royalties and assets (more on that in the next chapter) to reach your dream figure that can support you and your family for an extended period. 

Most music creators won't reach the pinnacle multiple times, except for a few well-known exceptions. Some of us end up with a few enjoyable gold medals, but those royalties may not provide for our families ten years down the road.

There's nothing wrong with choosing the traditional path as an aspiring music creator, but understand this: you're opting to invest your time in creating a limited number of songs, hoping they'll find their way past all the gatekeepers and eventually find success. 

As an artist and creator, that may feel like the only way to do it, but let me tell you; there are alternative paths to explore.

Let me be clear: I'm not saying you should forget your dream of writing hit songs and have a Grammy Award on your grand piano. Actually, If that is your dream, I would encourage you to learn your craft and do everything you can to reach your goal. But, I think I might have another option for you that will make your journey a lot less stressful while you churn out those hits.

All I'm trying to say is: Making it as a hit song creator and creating a sustainable income from it is hard, and the odds of making it are quite poor. 

But is it a lot of fun? Is it possible to make a lot of money from hit songs? HECK YES! 

Would I advise anyone to let their future income depend on chasing hit songs? Absolutely not! There are still too many gatekeepers and uncertain factors that make that a game you can't trust. That doesn’t mean I think you should stop playing that game, but I want you to consider the odds and create a separate source of income that you have more control over.