Irony, and the Small World of Jazz

Almost a year ago, Life Is Loud was placed in the "New Releases" section on the iTunes jazz page. This section displays eight albums at a time on the home page, and then you can click over to the next eight, etc., for four pages of albums. As new albums are added, the older titles slide down the ladder until they fall off the last page.

Life Is Loud sold fairly well for a self-released album, reaching #31 on the iTunes jazz chart. Around that time it was added to a new feature they stuck in the middle of the jazz page, called "Major Releases." It's been there ever since, but as you can see in the picture above, it's about to get bumped.

The word "Major" can mean several things, but in the music business it typically means having to do with one of the major labels. I worked at a major label, but my album was released on my own. In fact, if you browse this small corner of the iTunes Store, most of the albums in the jazz Major Release section are not on a major label.

There are only two types of jazz I really see being released on major labels now:

1) Crossover Jazz/Vocal. These are releases that are perhaps made by artists that can play jazz, but the music on their albums is a watered down version of what they can really do. Diana Krall, who's new album was just released by my former collegues at Verve, is a great example of this. The woman can play some great jazz piano, but how long has it been since we heard anything that really turned our heads (as far as jazz musicians are concerned). There are plenty of male crooners that fall into this category as well.

Typically, if people use the word "jazzy" to describe your music, it's just another way of saying the music is "jazz-like" which is another way of saying "not quite jazz."

2) Jazz Legends. Herbie Hancock, Wayne Shorter, Sonny Rollins... these guys can release albums on major labels because they are iconic figures among the jazz populace. People still take note when they release albums, even if their albums don't make much money for the label (though they can also make plenty of money for the label because of the relatively low marketing budgets associated with these albums).

Of course, for every jazz icon that releases an album on a major label there are many more that go the independent route. Similar to what we saw with Radiohead and Trent Reznor, these are artists that have well established reputations and large followings, so they're going to sell records even if it means fans have to go to their garage sale to buy them.

There are exceptions to both these rules, of course, but the majority of cutting edge jazz is being released on small labels or entirely independently. Jazz has been a niche genre ever since the '50s when big bands (of the swing/dance variety) started to decline in popularity and the rock'n'roll generation started listening to, well, rock'n'roll.

I'm not trying to blog a music history lesson, I'm just trying to make the point that in terms of market share, jazz has long had a small but dedicated fan base. And it gets divided even amongst the fans to even smaller sub-genres. I'm sure there are plenty jazz police who would never consider my music to be jazz. That's ok though, because there are plenty of people who like it, at least enough to sustain a dozen or so album sales every week.

Jazz used to be a bad word, but I think the current shift in music consumerism is going to change that. It turns out people are willing to listen to almost anything online, try new kinds of music and form their own opinion. Genres have always been labels given to music to help record stores organize their bins, but stores like CD Baby have been expanding their genre and sub-genre listing to help people explore very specific types of music. To most people, music is just music. Everyone is influenced by everything else, and artists shove all their influences into their heads for a while in hopes of making some kind of music that's completely unique and recognizable.

So perhaps the word "Major" will start to take on new meanings in places like the iTunes jazz page. Instead of having something to do with an album's means of release, it'll be more about the impact of the music.

Physical Formats: General Thoughts

When I signed up my first album through CD Baby in 2004, they were just beginning to distribute to digital service providers. Even though selling digital formats was very new and basically untested, it seemed like a great opportunity for independent artists. Manufacturing physical copies is expensive, and nobody sells as many as they order (see the unopened boxes of CDs in my closet. And bedroom, and I think there's one at my parents house). And since we're all used to barely selling anything, why not barely sell any downloads too? CD Baby even explained how you could create a digital only album to sell through them but warned that 90% of album sales are via physical formats, so do you really want to pass up those sales? Over a couple years though, it became clear that indie artists generally sell much more music digitally. It's a combination of having a greater reach through the internet and the shifting trend of people buying more music as downloads. I also believe that the type of person that goes exploring for good music by relatively unknown artists is the same type of forward thinking individual that would consume music in digital formats (such as the a la carte or subscription services that were starting to pop up at the time). Fast forward to today, and many popular acts sell more than 30% of their total sales via digital formats, and iTunes is arguably the largest music retailer in the US.

But despite the growing digital trend, there is still a lack of credibility surrounding a digital only release, or perhaps it just doesn't have the same amount of respect as something critics or customers or radio progammers that want to hold a tangible CD, even though they will likely rip it to their computer and transfer it to their MP3 player with the rest of their collection. It's also harder to sell downloads directly at a show, when the crowd is high on your music and their wallets are open (in theory). Even so, indie artists are highly unlikely to get a decent physical distribution deal to sell any meaningful amount of product through mainstream, national retail. In the end, how many physical CDs will you actually sell? Does that make it worth the cost to produce them?

I say it depends heavily on the act and their audience. Clearly a younger crowd probably cares less about a CD and just wants a few of your songs. Older audiences and niche oriented music might be more inclined to buy a CD either out of habit or because the full album is best experienced as a whole. The music and artists I tend to listen to usually don't shoot for the hit single, and I much prefer an entire album (keep in mind, I'm 27 and Napster was in it's heyday while I was in college). In high school I used to buy jazz albums and comb through the liner notes and pictures to learn as much as I could about everyone on the album. When I bought rock albums, it would be to learn every song on guitar, and this ranged from Hendix to Alice In Chains to Led Zeppelin and back again. I'd like to believe there are plenty of people that look at music the same way I do, and so as long as I want to buy full albums, somebody else will, too. I write this knowing fully well many people I know probably haven't bought music since 1999, and to people under 20, spending money on music is unheard of.

Even so, I've been able to create some profit from the music I sell. In fact, that's the bulk of my income. The vast majority (I'd guess 90%, but I don't have figures in front of me) is from digital sales, and almost exclusively iTunes. I've only manufactured CDs for two albums. I'm now sure what I'm going to do for the next album with my trio--maybe a short run of CDs and some vinyl. CDs are good for mailing to press or for the few people that still want CDs. Vinyl is gaining in popularity again but is still a tiny slice in the pie. However, I think a big chunk of that slice is made up of people that could be fans of my music. But the bulk of my focus will be on the digital release because I know that's how I make my money back so I can record more music, pay my band, and ultimately make some kind of living. The physical formats are simply for credibility. Perhaps this is a new form of paying your dues.