American Idol pulls in millions of viewers a week. I just watched on Oprah, their latest round pulled in over 32 million votes.

Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana is a TV/film star with guaranteed hit singles off the back of the show.

The movie business thrives on people taking a punt largely as a result of trailers and press. No leaked previews, no full consumption of the product for 12 weeks before it's available for sale.

Batman is doing some serious figures and is on its way to become the highest grossing film this decade.

We all know the biggest promotional tool for Michael Jackson was the videos and MTV.

Videos are currently the best performing media on the internet and the most profitable source of advertising dollars on the net. Video ads embedded in content is coming if it not here already. I am talking about cpm style ads where eyeballs count and not clicks.

The ability to produce a decent documentary or film or your new act is within reach and has been for a number of years. Look at www.straight8.net or www.onsuper8.org. Filmmaking can be for done under 100.00 quid. (see below for a fabulous short super 8 movie shot with one cartridge for peanuts). Shot on a consumer camera with little or no budget.



Now with HD and HDV cameras in tow, you can now shoot a feature length film for next to nothing. Furthermore opportunities for advertising are plenty.
With video you can still do product placement, endorsements advertorials and it won't seem out of place or too annoying for viewers.

Not only that, going to the movies is an activity best performed with someone else. It is sexy, interactive and sociable. You also expect to pay to watch a movie unlike going to see yet another boring band.

Imagine launching a new act with a documentary/film musical "Let It Be" style. If the film is successful then with distribution, the music will fly into the charts with relative ease. If the film flops it is easily spun into a "critically acclaimed" film and will go on selling for the band.

Video killed the radio star, reality TV killed the video star and the docupopmusical film star will kill the pop star. This is the new model in my opinion. It is all about distribution and the method of marketing. Of course great music still applies.

Discuss.

On the contrary, you're talking about investing

I think if the song and the artist is there any video is pretty much treated as the visuals at any bugdet, so that bit is kind of in place anyway.
Current techno stuff means that people just tend to get better at film making on the whole anyway, it`s the editing that is a pain.
I think that the band that got themselves on the UK`s Dragons Den tv show are really getting it right by using all available models. Very clever stuff, they side stepped all of our ideas and gave themselves an option of taking the idea back to either a bank or a major record co. (They probably did both actually)

I beg to differ Michael. There are thousands of movies/documentaries/videos made for far less than a million bucks. Furthermore with other alternatives such as the interweb, even your own covermount solution or a word of mouth campaign, you can distribute your film. With HDV, DV, Super8 16mm this can be done on a shoestring or if you prefer with a million bucks.

The point is to have a good story, great images and a cracking concept. Of course distribution is an issue but not as big a deal as you think. Not to mention Govt support for filmmakers.

Besides what is stopping an act booking a cinema one by one and do a tour ? Unplugged music followed by a screening followed by light refreshments where the punters can be SOLD the DVD/Album.

Also as far as distribution and exposure is concerned, Schools and Universities are perfect places amongst others. When I was at University, the most packed functions put on by the local "religious group" was film night. It was packed to the rafters with most people attracted by the novelty of a film on the campus. Was the film great ? No. Was it made with a million bucks ? certainly not.

As far as budget is concerned, it depends. For someone who knows a bit or two about filmmaking then you can do a "reality based" documentary/film for the cost of the tape/disc etc.

Could you buy a computer and have a hit ? Well YOU CAN. If it has been done before, it can be repeated. That argument is flawed Michael as 90% of Major label releases are flops too. So how about the following questions:

"Could you go to an expensive recording studio and have a hit ?". Reading the blurb of most studios with a lot of famous previous client, you'd think that they have the Midas touch.

"could you go to an expensive recording studio and blow 100,000 ?" You're more likely to waste your money than have a hit.

I am looking at the trends Michael and with music increasingly becoming a loss leader I predict that many artists will opt for alternatives ways to launch their album. Why give away your album when a promotional docu-film could get people in the cinema/school or Uni hall/TV/Internet and you get paid for it ? That's my point of the whole debate.

Instead of shooting a typical music video, for the same price and/or considerably cheaper, you can shoot a simple docu-drama using your own fans, revolving around a live performance of your act and get it out there even for free, leaving your prized asset i.e your album safe from freeloaders and the video itself becomes a value add for the physicals.

Don't forget the spirit of the 60s where people like Andy Warhol started out as photographers, creating their own rules. Of course you would need someone who knows what they are doing on board, who also believes in the artist, but with a moderate investment, this can work. Each artist and definitely each manager MUST now invest in a decent camera/editing suite and the know how. Or bring someone on board who does. Fortunately for me, I invested in video production at the same time i invested in audio production.

One of the reasons why I pointed out the links to Straight 8 www.straight8.net and www.onsuper8.org is the method they use in filming. All editing is in camera, no post production is used and they turn out some really creative stuff. The big problem with music at the moment is a lack of creativity. It is too business driven, too corporate, too dull. We are following rules made by people who broke existing rules and are too afraid to break the mould.

The Dragon's Den band broke the mould, got themselve a lot of cash and a lot of attention and a record deal (perhaps) that they would not have got before appearing on the show.

It is possible Mart, just pull in a struggling student/artist/film director who dreams of being in Spielberg's next blockbuster. Introduce them to your band and if they love them, they can make something artistic and interesting that will work online especially.

We can't all be watching dancing cats or other fluffy animals and most "behind the scenes" look at artists are just plain boring now.

My gut tells me that two things will happen in the near future:

A new artist will be launched by the Mail On Sunday, or a rival, with the "damned" covermount.

A new or existing act will launch its new album using a movie. It doesn't have to be expensive looking and can borrow from Dogme or Straight 8. I also believe that there are people on this board who are thinking the same thing. It is the future trend. Remember who said it first, when it happens. Lol.

JK ?

I'm with you KZ and have already done it with Vile Pervert; The Musical.

Well I am thinking.....


The best way forward for the industry is to dump the execs in suits and put the creative types back in charge.
That was how the 60`s worked and that is what the industry still has millions from.

Yes, they may be vague and Svengali like, but creativity does not come from a suited handshake.

The Sven Galis are still there Mart. Only in Independent labels. But yes, I agree with the sentiment. Ok the suits do have their place, they are not all bad but maybe they should just drive the bus and leave the music to the music people.
The vast quantity of back catalogue comes from the labels where the music is controlled by the creative guys. Mind you the artists might not fare better financially so this is where the suits are still needed. To pay the bills and make sure no-one gets screwed financially.

KZ, if you look at your opening paragraph, you talked about the movie industry, citing Batman. When I quoted

Ouch Michael! .."Now we have to do Moulin Rouge as well"..

Spot on. If we are not careful "new model" ideas will end up with us all multi-tasking as much as every other industry, whilst those that become unemployed and , gradually unemployable, will have no money to buy the products we make anyway.

It is essential to look slightly beyond the jobs that we are ourselves do and see how this knocks on to jobs for a worldwide community.

How daft would the last guy in the world with a job look if he was a solo singer with a backing track system?

(probably a swift bow and arrow to the head would be the general feeling..)

KZ, First, its good to be thinking and your doing that.

You've no doubt read my rants on this board about reality television as a driver for music. AI is not about music its about television. The numbers achieved in music sales have to be accounted to the enormous cost of this kind of tv exposure. All of the Disney acts that put out bad albums have massive tv exposure first, and then the tween audience is market exploited. Otherwise they would not be making records. Its the "Monkeys" all over again for the digital age, with far more forgettable songs.

Miley Cyrus is the perfect example of this. Her "Today" show performance this morning, as I was told, attracted the largest live crowd they ever had for one of these morning performances. They in fact had some kind of crowd control problem. Keep in mind that many credible star acts have also been there to less fanfare.

The question is, how is an act going to do this independently, and make it work to substantial results.

Jessica Simpson and her sister have fallen off the face of the earth because all the exposure, and production tricks in the world can't camouflage their lack of talent. The tv dollar cost to get them to their numbers? Reality show music-cost numbers, that would make most people fall off their seat if they saw them.

My two cents.

I'd love to see your idea work

Michael, did you have a look at the links I gave you ?

I think you are being completely negative, in fact, cynical is the word. You are also making a lot of assumptions, but that's ok.

Now back to my opening gambit:

"American Idol pulls in millions of viewers a week. I just watched on Oprah, their latest round pulled in over 32 million votes.

Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana is a TV/film star with guaranteed hit singles off the back of the show.

The movie business thrives on people taking a punt largely as a result of trailers and press. No leaked previews, no full consumption of the product for 12 weeks before it's available for sale."

The point here which I thought was obvious is: VISUALS work in a way music cannot.

The evolution of the music business is suggesting that the punter's first exposure to an artist is going to be through video/film i.e visuals.

I was not asking each band or project to be launched with a blockbuster movie.

As for watchability (is there such a word), are you seriously overlooking the amount of rubbish on Youtube that is getting lots of views ? All made with dodgy cinematography/videography etc etc. Just seen a granny doing a pole dance which is now the latest Youtube sensation.

The links I gave which I advise you to go and look at or you will never get my point are showing good quality films and not a jerky camera work in sight.

Instead of just making music videos, I am suggesting you make docu-videos that are INTERESTING, have a lot of "live" recordings of the songs, shoot it properly. Of course this means a bit more work and care in the story telling but I can assure you that if done properly, you will get views. Furthermore, everyone is making a music video and a lot of them are formulaic, boring and do not allow one to connect with the artist emotionally. Good luck with your project and you are on the right direction. Of course you need stars ! You need characters but you have them already don't you ?

As for costings, Michael I have done a lot of research in this area, especially down here in Australia but I don't think the price is that different in the UK.

Try screening it in a school. Their halls/theatres are very cheap to hire. Also a digital projector is reasonably cheap as well. If you do go to a cinema to screen it then you need to play it very carefully. Using their smallest hall or indeed do a deal with the Cinema to screen it as an "independent" film. I know that Film Victoria, supports new filmmakers etc.
At the very least, you can screen it in a music venue which gives you more reason to charge a decent rate.

Even if you don't go that far, then you can always distribute it for free online. Make sure you have a video ad network to monetise the views. You can also upload it to www.revver.com and never have to host it yourself so not only do you not have to pay for bandwidth, but you also increase the income.

Episodes, episodes, episodes. Break it down into 1/5/9 minute chunks so people don't have to watch it all in one sitting.

At the very least over one year, you will recoup your costs and then some. If you have a hit then you will clean up and you do not need to give a free mp3 away.

There is no excuse for bad video production. The amount of resources, available for free, online are staggering. Also if you are already producing music, video editing is not a million miles different. If you are writing songs, you can write a stoy to go with your artist.
No you don't have to do a Moulin Rouge. Do a film about your band, make their public appearance scarce, and the film glamourous and the mystique suddenly appears. Note this. The biggest artist in the world, did very little interviews, was not on every single TV show, festival, live gig, toilet venue etc etc.
Instead he let his video/films do the talking. Yes they had a lot of money but with creative ideas and a storyline one can do the same, with the right artist.

Finally, let he who has ears hear. Lol. This is not for everyone.

Watch this fascinating report about online video:

www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=87794&videoChannel=3

As KZ and others know, the reason I've been less active on these boards is that I've actually been doing this - writing the script and making the film Vile Pervert and at this moment I'm working on the script for the next movie; not about me at all, intended to break and establish new acts and new stars; budget (as before)

GG thanks for your kind words and you make a lot of sense in what you are saying. Success will depend on the act in question and one has to build the right foundations for it to work. JK you have got the right idea and plan of attack. The only thing I would say is, maybe you should put a trailer of the "movie" online but perhaps get people to subscribe to it in order to view episodes which are broken in chunks so people can watch them one by one.

I am hard at work on a similar project, tweaking it and working on it to get it right. Whichever way you look at it, you could launch the act online or even on satellite TV www.propellertv.co.uk for example. Watch this space.

YouTube is the most important music destination on the planet. It is also the most important social network. Forget about myspace and facebook. YouTube is the only place you can get meaningful traction, useful comments on your material and gain new fans who will share your work to others simply because they like it.

We made our Would Love To Meet You video for less than 250 quid, and our Girl You Never Knew video for, hmmm, the cost of a video tape. Concert footage is almost free, as is simply turning on a video camera and simply playing in front of it.

Georgia Wonder on YouTube

Vanity publishing is not the New Model or the way forwards.

By the way, the video we made of our week on tour was completely non-glamorous as that was just not the way it was. So much the better. When we get glamorous, we'll report that, instead of pretending.

In the strictest definition of what people mean when they say "vanity publishing" then you are completely wrong. Every band, artist, musician who is "publishing" their music on Myspace. Yourspace, Everyone-elsesspace is doing vanity publishing.I'm afraid it is part of the new model and is the future. Get over it. Now some people shouldn't but the internet has made all kinds of things possible. Also every indie does it for the love of music which in many eyes = vanity. They do it for love not money.

GW you are spot on. Youtube is very good though not necessarily for making money but hopefully Youtube will change that soon. I really enjoyed your tour video. Though I think you could do with a lot more edits but that's my preference. On a wider note, how many have heard about the new trend of online magazines ?

The perfect skin to embed videos into. I am more convinced that releasing digital magazines or fanzines with videos embedded into them is better than giving mp3s away. This way you have more branding, more advertising or plugging opportunities and if people want to pirate the damn thing, they will but you will still have the option of selling.

We can learn a lot from certain websites with underclad models who manage to "extort" subscription fees from their fans. It's all about the artist and their song of course. No need for fancy expensive videos. A simple performance video will do with photos, photoshoots and anything with your gorgeous looking or not so gorgeous looking star in it.

Hey if JK can get people interested in him then anyone can. Lol.

For some Digital Mags try
www.talksport.net/magazine

www.monkeymag.co.uk (NSFW be warned).