3 ms·

I don't think it worked for Louis CK simply because he's popular. It worked because he's a great performer. And I hope this doesn't come across as too harsh, bu

I don't think it worked for Louis CK simply because he's popular. It worked because he's a great performer. And I hope this doesn't come across as too harsh, but the out-of-tune moments, like "find" at about :47 into "When I Find Claire" are why it's tough for other people to do the same. Louis CK put out a $200k production at $5 / pop, not including editing time (since he edited it himself). This is not the musical equivalent of a $200k production. I hope your dad makes a few bucks because it's important to support local artists, but this isn't particularly well produced, so comparing this with Louis CK's production isn't going to safely lead to general conclusions about the approach to sales.

jaysonelliot 15y ago
That's funny, I enjoyed the music because of the production (and talent), not in spite of it. Ever heard Hasil Adkins' self-produced tapes that he made in a shack in the 1950s? Giving them big studio production values would have been totally inappropriate. The thing about music is that there's no one-size-fits-all approach to how it should be produced. I'm not saying this singer should be compared to Hasil Adkins, or that he's a musical equivalent of Louis CK. I'm saying that you should look at what it is on its own merits. All I got out of this was that he was taking the same approach as Louis CK by skipping all the complicated stuff and just selling as directly and simply as possible. Just because it's not on the same scale doesn't mean it's not in the same spirit.
dools 15y ago
There are two issues at play here: one is actual recording production (which in the case of Nick's songs is reasonable albeit homespun) and actual content. Out of tune moments - they happen to really amazing musicians (especially when performing live) and a lot of what you're calling "production" these days is just auto-tune. That being said, he's not, never has been, nor will ever be a "diva". The style of music doesn't necessarily call for it, although that's not to say that he hasn't worked on improving his voice over the years - mainly with a focus on unamplified street performing more than intonation and accuracy. Really, though, the goal here is to allow a musician to connect with anyone who enjoys their music - not to make anyone like it or convince them that it's great. Because those people are not going to be common (let's face it - we're never going to see Spunky Junk Tambourine performed at the MTV VMAs), what I'm interested in finding out is whether or not simply taking the same approach as busking but broadcasting it to a much wider audience will allow Nick to make a living from his originals in the same way as he can make a living singing Khe San at 2am on a Sunday morning (and having people steal his tambourines :)
- boredguy8 15y ago
  I understand what you're saying. I hope you understand my point isn't, "This needs to be more like pop music." It's rather the simple point that this is perfectly fine amateur music, but not much more than that. Drawing any broader conclusions about the viability of direct-to-consumer sales of media content is inappropriate with this experiment.

jaysonelliot 15y ago

That's funny, I enjoyed the music because of the production (and talent), not in spite of it. Ever heard Hasil Adkins' self-produced tapes that he made in a shack in the 1950s? Giving them big studio production values would have been totally inappropriate. The thing about music is that there's no one-size-fits-all approach to how it should be produced. I'm not saying this singer should be compared to Hasil Adkins, or that he's a musical equivalent of Louis CK. I'm saying that you should look at what it is on its own merits. All I got out of this was that he was taking the same approach as Louis CK by skipping all the complicated stuff and just selling as directly and simply as possible. Just because it's not on the same scale doesn't mean it's not in the same spirit.

dools 15y ago

There are two issues at play here: one is actual recording production (which in the case of Nick's songs is reasonable albeit homespun) and actual content. Out of tune moments - they happen to really amazing musicians (especially when performing live) and a lot of what you're calling "production" these days is just auto-tune. That being said, he's not, never has been, nor will ever be a "diva". The style of music doesn't necessarily call for it, although that's not to say that he hasn't worked on improving his voice over the years - mainly with a focus on unamplified street performing more than intonation and accuracy. Really, though, the goal here is to allow a musician to connect with anyone who enjoys their music - not to make anyone like it or convince them that it's great. Because those people are not going to be common (let's face it - we're never going to see Spunky Junk Tambourine performed at the MTV VMAs), what I'm interested in finding out is whether or not simply taking the same approach as busking but broadcasting it to a much wider audience will allow Nick to make a living from his originals in the same way as he can make a living singing Khe San at 2am on a Sunday morning (and having people steal his tambourines :)

boredguy8 15y ago
I understand what you're saying. I hope you understand my point isn't, "This needs to be more like pop music." It's rather the simple point that this is perfectly fine amateur music, but not much more than that. Drawing any broader conclusions about the viability of direct-to-consumer sales of media content is inappropriate with this experiment.