So this is not really a digital marketing post but I thought I’d share some other music-related thoughts here.

On Monday June 30th I attended the Urban Alternative Music panel here in Los Angeles, put on by The Recording Academy Los Angeles Chapter, at The Standard hotel downtown. A who’s who of the LA urban music scene was in attendance. Everyone from artists Leon Ware and Lina, to publicists, promoters, local artists, as well as reps from major labels and publishers, were in the room.

The moderator was David Mitchell of Urban Network Magazine. The panelists were:

Vikter Duplaix – GRAMMY-nominated recording artist and DJ

Dexter Story – Talent buyer/concert promoter, Temple Bar, Zanzibar, Little temple

Steve McKeever – Founder, Hidden Beach Recordings

Garth Trinidad – DJ – KCRW, music supervisor, event promoter

Sy Smith – Recording artist, musician

The panel was in part a debate on the Urban Alternative Performance category of the GRAMMYs, and in part a recruiting initiative for the Recording Academy to gain more members, that would better represent the audience of this category. This category is defined by the Academy as follows: “For newly recorded urban/alternative performances with vocals. This category is intended for artists who have been influenced by a cross section of urban music- from R&B, Rap and Jazz, to Rock and Spoken Word – and whose music is generally that which is outside of mainstream trends.”

The panel started out with a discussion on “what is the definition of urban alternative music?” which was a continuing theme throughout the evening. Honestly I felt this aspect was a little fruitless. Anyone who is truly a music lover pretty much ignores categories. And have you ever heard an artist say “I love it when people put me in a box and define my music for me”? So here you have a group of artists and artist-friendly people, discussing the thing they hate – categories – in a panel put on by one of the industry’s chief proponents of categories! So that part of the discussion was a little circular and unproductive as for the most part people discussed how restrictive it is for artists to have to define themselves a certain way etc. Nothing new there. Clearly in the context of the GRAMMYs, categories are necessary, and since this category has already been defined as described above, why talk circles around it? Why not start out accepting the fact that the category has been defined in the way it has, and move on from there?

One theme of the debate centered on issues of independence vs. mainstream. There seemed to be a strong feeling that Urban Alternative was almost synonymous with underground music. An audience member from J Records even suggested that radio spins, or lack thereof should be a determining factor when considering who should be included, arguing that someone like India Arie gets major commercial radio play and therefore can no longer be considered alternative. The other side of that coin is that, even though a group like Gnarls Barkley gets major airplay, their sound is still different, i.e “alternative” compared to other mainstream acts. Another issue that was brought up was, should an icon like Prince even be considered or should he be passed over to make way for more unknown acts?

Personally I think this is mixing and matching two different issues. This category developed from a need to recognize artists such as India Arie, Van Hunt, Me’shell Ndegeocello et al, who undeniably have a place in “urban” music, but shouldn’t necessarily be compared to, or forced to compete with the Beyonce’s, Ashanti’s etc because their style of music is clearly very different. As Sy succinctly said it “It’s just not appropriate.” The creation of separate categories for independent music seems to me, to be a different issue. At the same time, Duplaix said he would love to see his name in a category next to Prince, suggesting that any artist musically appropriate for the category should be allowed to compete on an equal playing field. To me it should be about the quality of the performance and song, not the level of recognition an artist may or may not have.

The “Urban Alternative” category in particular seems more troublesome, and more open for debate than others because of that pesky word “alternative”. You can’t be alternative if there’s not an overarching trend to be differentiated from. In contrast, most of the other GRAMMY categories are neatly and finitely determined and defined, but this one is by definition relative to whatever is considered “mainstream.” So in theory this category has change and evolution built right into it – as long as it’s urban, but different than what’s going on in mainstream, then it’s alternative.

As the discussion kept coming back to genre labels and how artists dislike them, it struck me as fruitless to keep making the argument that labels in music are bad. As Sy pointed out, the labels and categories basically exist for the people trying to make money off the music (i.e. advertisers) and those trying to figure out whose listening (i.e. more advertisers). Musicians generally don’t care to label themselves and most average consumers don’t feel the need to label their tastes too rigidly. We listen to what listen to because we like it, and enjoy it for what it is, not because of the label some corporation has given it. Most casual radio listeners probably don’t even realize that their tastes have been formatted and packaged. They wouldn’t even know what Urban AC music is, even if it’s the “format” of their favorite station. On the level of experience and enjoyment of music – labels are unnecessary.

However we have to understand that the labels become necessary if you want to enter into the mainstream machinery, because that’s how it’s currently set up. BUT let’s all realize that if your music is good enough, it will transcend ALL labels. Hence why someone like Erykah Badu can be considered ‘mainstream’ or ‘pop’ because she is commercially successful and a household name. At this point it doesn’t matter how you ‘format’ her music – she’s past that. It’s unnecessary because she’s just Erykah now, and we know what that means. We no longer need to try and describe her as R&B, neo-soul or urban alternative.

There was a lot of talk on the panel about the label “neo-soul” and how a lot of artists now basically consider it a derogatory term because it has become a stereotype of itself. Even Kedar Massenberg, who coined the term, now despises it, according to an anecdote told by Vikter Duplaix. But even this label was born of necessity from a marketing standpoint to throw light on the work of a certain type of artist and to highlight how it was different than other music around at that time.

We all – consumers, fans, advertisers, promoters etc – need to be evolved enough to know that the label is just a way of describing; it’s just a convenient function of language that should make it easier for us to communicate about music. Let’s not get too attached to the label or definition itself to the point of obscuring the music. Make the labels work for you, but don’t let them limit you.

A final interesting point I’d like to highlight was made by Vikter Duplaix. He talked about how, as an up-and-coming artist, hearing your music on the radio alongside the likes of an Usher or a similar product of the ‘mainstream machine’, actually gives you the opportunity to hear your music in a different context and to learn to improve it. There’s a reason why Usher’s records sound great in a club or on the radio, and alternative/indie musicians can learn something technically from that and apply it to their own music to make it sound even better. This put the underlying “indie Vs. mainstream” dichotomy in a new light. We need to stop generalizing “mainstream” in general as Bad. Wouldn’t it be great for us as music fans for a Sy Smith or a Vikter Duplaix to be so popular that they would be considered mainstream? By limiting our definitions and clinging on to any particular label too tightly, whether that be “independent”, “neo-soul”, “underground”, “alternative” or whatever, we do the music and the artists a disservice. Let them grow as they wish and support them as long as you enjoy their music. For Sy, who enjoys her anonymity perhaps that will mean she will be considered “underground” but will make a healthy living from her music. For Vikter, who wants to win GRAMMYs and have the world at large know who he is – let’s support him for as long as he makes great music, even when he’s considered mainstream along with Usher, and not necessarily ‘urban alternative.’

The panel was entertaining because of the great personalities involved and there was some good information shared. But I think that the starting point of trying to define “urban alternative music” put the flow of discussion in a disadvantaged place. I would have liked to have seen more of a focus on positive and progressive elements – how to support and develop the careers of artists involved, for example. Or a more productive discussion on how to make the necessary evil of ‘labels’ and ‘categories’ work for you as an artist, and not against you. Also, the sub-title of the panel was “A Global Movement” but there was no discussion of this aspect at all.