>We can, however, put a nice frame around our art. If we are artists we
>will know if it hurts our art or not and we can easily find out which
>type of frame that will be perceived as 'honorable'. Personally, I find
>there is a great depth of that kind of art available in the commercial
>music field. They sure know how to frame things.
Absolutely! Images sell!
This is *so* important in modern culture, where even our brocolli has to be
dyed a perfect green and packaged up in PET plastic so that it 'looks
really good'.
People are buying images not just the product.
They believe their purchases define them as an individual, and want to put
their money into images that they feel they can relate to or are suggestive
of how they would *like* to see themselves.
Visual imagery can convey so much of where the music is coming from, as
well as what the people making it are about.
To this end, I have been carefully studying web sites to get good ideas on
how to carry this out.
I have a bookmark folder of what I call 'prototype' web sites - those that
have very high visual impact (in a classy, artistic way), and seem to be
very effective in drawing you into their site, stimulating your curiousity
about the content and the people behind it, and at the same time conveying
to you a sense of the *value* of what they have to offer.
It is quite an art, and clearly takes a lot of work, but I think it really
pays off.
I have definitely noticed, as Carlo has mentioned, that images - especially
high resolution *photographs* have the highest impact.
The background and layout can be very stark and simple, as long as there
are numerous interesting photographs to catch the eye and draw you in. ("A
picture is worth a thousand words", etc.)
>Point I'm making. Perhaps we need to explain to people what exactly to
>think as long as they're not going to take the trouble to find that out
>themselves.
>The first two CDs were like "Hi, I'm Carlo, what's your name?"
>
>Pure genius if you ask me. They went out and, as a CD, interacted with
>people who didn't know what they were all about. And rather than getting
>irritated about that they just went out and introduced themselves.
>
>I mean when you think about it it's kind of OBVIOUS, now isn't it!
I agree wholeheartedly with this as well - that's another thing I've been
noticing about popular and succesful web sites.
They give you a glimpse of the people behind the scenes - let you know who
they are, what they think and are trying to accomplish.
This humanizes the whole (hopefully very classy) presentation, reminding
you that there are real people behind it all - (and they could really use
your support!)
People seem to really love this and respond to it.
We are so disconnected in this modern industrial world - this creates a
means of reconnecting on a personal level.
>And then when Richard Stallman's essays have been song over again, and
>our philosophy is clear to everyone, and we all have a full belly and a
>warm fire, then may we get back to getting REALLY crazy (like telling
>people THEY can actually make it as well.
That is what is so great about it - lighting that fire in others and
watching the fires spread.
This is how the world changes.
>Yep! That's pretty much it! Just because we're not CHARGING doesn't mean
>we don't need to MARKET our music (MARKETING=Telling people what to
>think favourable to us). We also need to make it a social standard that
>musicians on the Internet are to be tipped, and everything else is
>simply a question of horrific manners.
>
>Repetition. Repetion. Repetion. Over, and
>over again. We've got to hook these people. Why? Because other people
>have already hooked them. They want to be hooked. We're not going to
>milk them, we will treat them very well. But if we don't tell them what
>to think, somebody else will. And they can think whatever they want
>except for one thing: Internet musicians are to be TIPPED and their
>music is to be LISTENED TO.
> . . .
>I think we gotta do the same. We know things. These things are good and
>very wise. We need to explain them in a catchy way.
:)
>* VERY spiffy web sites, like animated CD covers
>* Marketing tactic guerilla information ambush strategies
> (Like the 'Creative Commons' Button)
>* Song content that does not fight against anything, but simply IMPLIES
> that the truth is that downloadable music is superior. That nobody
> should even bother listening to anything else because it will be
> biased by corporatocracy anyway (I really BELIEVE this, personally)
>* People will disagree with us but start to agree with us after about
> the third time we repeat what we say as 'Truth'
Very interesting ideas.
I don't agree with the 'downloadable music is superior' part - but it is
certainly not 'inferior'.
It has its own place, and deserves compensation (i.e. donations), just as
much as any other.
>Get the facts: downloadable music makes people happier! Independent
>studies*
>reveals that my sister wasn't satisfied with bought cds, but now she's so
>happy with downloaded music! Oh my ogg!:)
:D
- Maluvia
