To free or not to free - the big question

"No-one from the label is saying, look man, we like what you do, but could you include some trumpets. Or how about some dancing girls?"

Right, so there's this guy, TayZonday, and he put his song up on YouTube and it's called Black Rain and it makes it to the front page, and millions of people are watching it. And tho it's really simple the melody is quite catchy and this guy has a real deep voice like old school soul. And now each of his songs are getting millions of views and four stars ratings, and he doesn't just sing for free on YouTube he also lets you download MP3s of his work for free, and download Acapellas and remix his work, and re-record his work and do all the sorts of things creative people like to have done with their work.

And he's famous. And he has an audience - 11 million views of one his songs on the tube . And he's in charge of his destiny as a musician.

 

And no-one from the label is saying, look man, we like what you do, but could you include some trumpets. Or could you get some dancing girls? Or, really without more tits and ass your video isn't going to make MTV. And without MTV no-one is going to know who you are. And without our lawyers, we're not going to be able to stop people from ripping you off - like that was possible anyway, when in fact the only person who really would ever rip him off, is the entity taking at least 95% of his turnover - the music machine itself, and the huge aparatus it traditionally needed to create, distribute and market the whole shebang.

So now he's a star, and he's his own boss, and people want to make donations, and no doubt will want to buy his limited edition album if/when it comes out, and all the rest of it. And of course this why Radiohead and Madonna are already changing their act.

And I keep thinking of the two women i spoke to at Edinburgh who were like, 'don't put your films online!'. Tell your friends, they said, tell em, don't put em on the web, they'll never get into festivals, they'll never make a TV sale. And Yousef Ali Khan (Skin Deep) had said the same thing a few months previously so while I was shocked, it seems, like, the common thinking on this issue in the UK. And I'm like, well, surely the festivals and the TV will be forced to change their position if more and more great films end up online?

Because if a filmmaker has a choice between 10 million views online or 100 at London Film Festvial, or, what, 25 at Edinburgh, well if they want to make a career out of making films, it's hardly a choice, unless they feel really confident that the 'established' model of film development/finance/production/marketing/distribution both works well and will survive, and furthermore is likely to give them a job. 

And then it became clear that maybe the people who were saying 'Don't Put Online' are largely those who have something to lose by the replacement of much of the industry with technology - the sales agents, distributors and festivals (tho surely festivals will only benefit in this new world as webshooters encourage their fans to meet them and watch their film on the big screen).

Likewise the many artists want only to communicate and be true to themselves, and for them money is a nice side effect. And that the industry talks bullshit about all these models because they think they don't have a job if the models crumble. when in fact they just need to start again and think about new models.

But it's annoying how much crap filmmakers are being told, how much crap. And how far behind those who pay to go hear these panels and training courses will end up if they follow all the advice. It's a brave new world, with a billion people waiting to see your work. M'kay?