The Swarm
Broken Social Scene: Metric's Manager Responds to Greg Ipp's Daily Swarm Open Letter To Canada's Music Industry...
TDS Editors
Yesterday Canada’s National Post picked up on Greg Ipp’s An Open Letter To Canada’s Music Industry and Grant System: Why Does Metric, MSTRKRFT and ‘Well-Funded Mediocrity’ Get All The Support?.. which has been inflaming passion since it was published on The Daily Swarm on July 13.
Today comes a response from Metric’s manager Mathieu Drouin.
———————
Dear Greg,
My name is Mathieu Drouin and I manage Metric with my partner Francoise de Grandpre. Early last week I was forwarded a copy of your open letter to the Daily Swarm pertaining to Canada’s Music Industry and Grant System.
I must admit, my original intention was to simply ignore the whole thing because, frankly, I didn’t think it was worth the time it would take me to respond. Considering anybody that has the least bit of meaningful, firsthand experience with and/or knowledge of the subject matter to which your letter speaks will easily see it for what it is – which is to say a baseless, largely inaccurate and generally naive or uninformed rant – I don’t consider that your tirade poses any kind of real threat to Metric or the funding organizations you have elected to attack in what I would deem to be such a brazen and short sighted manner. Especially when contemplated in the context of your long standing and well known personal bias against Metric (the genesis of which I will do you the courtesy of not airing publicly in this forum for all to read), it struck me that the lack of objectivity and clear absence of a proper, in depth understanding of the issues spoke for themselves and I therefore preferred to dismiss it as nothing more than a minor annoyance and take the high road.
Unfortunately, I have since been contacted by a number of different media outlets seeking a comment or response on the subject of your treatise as it seems you are trying to turn this in to some kind of full court press initiative. I guess I failed to appreciate how alluring the attention might prove to be. In any case, regardless of your motivation, the result is that what started as an inconsequential irritant has now snowballed into something that has begun to take more time and energy to try and ignore than is required to simply respond.
With that in mind, while I have no intention of engaging with you in any kind of ongoing pissing match, considering I am sitting here on the tarmac waiting for my plane to take off and have nothing better to do for the next 45 minutes of this delightful delay, I decided I might as well take this opportunity to draft one comprehensive reply to your letter in an effort to dissect and refute those of your assertions which I take issue with.
I apologize in advance to the reader for what some might consider to be an extraordinarily long retort, but since this amounts to the extent of the time I’m willing to commit to this debate and I will simply point anyone with any further inquiries as to our position to this document, it strikes me as advisable to be thorough and exhaustive in my reply.
In an effort to make this as bearable and coherent of a read as possible, I am going to roughly break down the following in to two parts. Firstly, my comments in response to your points on the Canadian grant system supporting music in general, and then more specifically my thinking on whether or not Metric deserves the continued support of that system given their current level of success.
THE CANADIAN GRANT SYSTEM IN GENERAL
I find you very quick to criticize a funding system that has consistently achieved such impressive results on behalf of Canadian musical talent over the course of many, many years. I say that especially considering the assortment of comments and assertions you have made which – to anyone who truthfully knows what they are talking about when it comes to these funding programs and the nature of their objectives plus the guidelines which govern the distribution of the funds at their disposal – only (as respectfully as I can say this) exposes your underlying ignorance with respect to the bulk of the subject matter at issue.
If I may make a suggestion, perhaps you would do well to invest a little time and energy towards personally learning how the programs work instead of spending so much of it criticizing them. Specifically, it might benefit you to spend some time better understanding what their respective objectives are, and then try preparing your own applications in the future as opposed to hiring out third parties. This is the approach all successful managers and labels I know of in this country take and I am sure you would benefit from adopting it as well. After all, the applications are really quite quick, simple and easy to prepare. By no means do they require anyone to go out and employ “top notch professional grant writers” and, honestly, even if these parties were getting you results (which clearly they are not), I seriously question the wisdom of going to such an unnecessary expense given how financially “hard up” you purport yourself to be.
For any readers who may be interested, I invite you to go have a look at an example of any one of several applications such as the ones being discussed, in order to see for yourselves just how simple, quick and easy they are to prepare. Here is a link to the FACTOR online programs and applications website. As you will see, you can even fill them out online. Personally, I have always found it remarkable how administratively manageable organizations like FACTOR, VideoFACT and Radio Starmaker have made it for qualified artists and industry applicants (companies) to secure such substantial financial support with so little and such simple paperwork required. For example, the fact that you can get a grant of up to $40,000 as a result of an application that can be completed in less than one hour by someone with a little experience (and that’s assuming you prepare the budget yourself, which most video production companies will gladly do for free) is at once extraordinary and a good reason to do the application yourself considering that the only professional grant writers I have ever come across charge a small flat fee versus a percentage of any funds ultimately received in exchange for their services. With the commission percentage generally sitting at around 15%, that means if you were to get approved in full on a FACTOR video application grant, you’d probably be paying up to $6,000 for what amounted to only a few hours worth of work. Nevertheless, even if the commission amount were much less substantial, the same wisdom with respect to writing your own applications applies. I have no doubt that those who prepare their own applications have a higher success rate with respect to funding approvals. Nobody understands a project like the people in charge of it and therefore no one is better suited to defend its merits and accomplishments.
Going back to my first point, to the inevitable question as to what I base myself upon when I say that Canada’s grant system has achieved such “impressive results” for Canadian musical artists, I would like to point simply to the disproportionate, per capita success of Canadian artists as compared to that of those artists originating from other countries.
Specifically, year over year of the past decade and beyond, Canada has been the second or third largest producer of musical talent in the world (depending on the year) as measured by our artists’ contribution to the aggregate dollars generated by the career activities of musical artists around the world (all career revenue centers combined). In other words, that puts Canada at #2 (after the USA – or sometimes #3, after the UK) despite having a population roughly only 1/10th the size of the population of the USA (and substantially less than the UK as well). Now that’s a pretty telling and compelling accomplishment if you ask me. While it would be nice to believe that Canadians are just “that much more talented” than the people of the rest of the world, practically speaking that’s not a viable explanation for our disproportionately significant per capita success on the international musical stage. So Greg, if you don’t think that the grants are responsible for this success (short of which I don’t see how you can argue that the system has been successful given the objectives), then what do you think is responsible?
I don’t think anyone in the know would argue that Canada’s network of grants and conditional loans available to the music industry is, comparatively speaking and on relative terms, the most substantial such system of its kind in the world. I would venture to say with quite some assurance that its existence is at the root of why so many international musical stars are Canadian (by the way – most of whom to which you can trace back some form of financial assistance from the organizations you have chosen to disparage, dating back to the days prior to their breakthrough international success). In support of that position, it not surprising to note that prior to the advent of FACTOR and other such organizations, Canada was not so strong in relative terms as compared to the rest of the world when it comes to the music space. Hum, I wonder why that is?
Admittedly, in the interests of being objective, I am not saying I don’t think there isn’t room for improvement within the system. I don’t think anyone, including the organizations themselves, would take that stance. In fact, I think they would also say openly and proudly that what they fund and the way that they fund it is an ongoing process they work on improving every day. If you monitor the programs closely, you will notice that the program rules and regulations are constantly evolving in order to address the ever-changing needs of the artists and the companies who draw upon those funds. The organizations are seeking to adapt to the needs of an industry which is under siege by technological change and the resulting evolution of consumer behaviour which has permeated every aspect of the music business. Considering the depth and severity of those changes, I am frankly supremely impressed at how proactive the organizations have managed to be in staying on top of it all. If only all bureaucracies moved so quickly and efficiently…
That said, no system is perfect. There certainly exists the potential for inefficiencies and, like any system, perhaps even the possibility of abuses by people with devious intentions. But again, what system doesn’t present that potential? More to the point, I would gladly challenge you to do better! It is easy to sit on the sidelines and complain about the system, but it’s a lot harder to effect change and I think if you had to walk a mile in the shoes of the people whose methods you criticize so freely, people passionate and dedicated to the cause of helping Canadian artists despite getting very little in return, you would be singing a very different tune.
Speaking of which, have you ever made an effort to get involved and effect the change you think is so sorely needed? You know you have that option, right? You know all sorts of industry organizations – including FACTOR – are constantly looking for contributions of time and insight from the private sector. Just recently FACTOR solicited feedback from the industry on what changes should be considered to the programs before they issued new guidelines. Did you take a moment and put in the effort to let them know what you thought? Were you even paying enough attention that you were aware of it? If you had, I think you would have quickly realized that the issues are far more complex and challenging than might otherwise naively believe. Again, no system is perfect. But then again, what is? I certainly am not, are you?
Another thing you seem to fail to consider is the fact that not all these organizations are government funded. Organizations such as Starmaker and VideoFACT are privately funded. Their money doesn’t come from the government. While they are perhaps charitable endeavours by nature, that’s not tax payer money you are talking about. Their money is coming from private corporations with a profit motive. For example, VideoFACT is largely funded by Much Music. Much Music plays videos to attract an audience in order to support its business of selling airtime to advertisers. Despite your belief unknown, unproven artists should get money, I think it therefore stands to reason that they would want to support and fund the creation of music videos which they believe a large segment of their potential audience will be attracted to watching. After all, in many ways they are funding the creation of their own content.
Like it or not, there are very few truly selfless acts in this world…. so unless your intention is to take on capitalist society at large, I would take a minute to consider where a lot of this money comes from before presuming to know how it should be spent and feeling entitled to tell the people putting up that money the same. The fact that the broadcasters are infusing so much money to support Canadian culture in the first place is generous and commendable. It is certainly to our benefit as an industry at large, so perhaps you might want to consider that before you kick the gift horse in the mouth. Personally, I find it hard to fault them for perhaps wanting to support, in the future, projects which have done well for them in the past. I say that as someone who works with lots of little artists that don’t get funded very often either, much as it would be nice for me if they did. That’s the nature of the beast. When I earn their support on those artists, I am sure I will have it. Until then, I don’t think they should be forced to support smaller, unknown projects in order to preserve your idea of what is “fair” or help bolster bank balance. Business is business. And if a company cannot survive without life support from grants or other artificial outside revenue assistance sources, perhaps some might argue it should not exist at all. There are, after all, market forces at work that help to regulate what and whom succeeds versus who doesn’t. Like it or not, those forces and the public which governs them, are the ultimate arbitrators of quality and value. Not you, and not me.
All of the above notwithstanding, as self-righteous, indignant and selfish as I may personally find your position on all of this to be, I can however understand how, from your particular point of view, it may seems unfair. But I honestly think that if you invested more time in understanding the system and working with it as opposed to criticizing and disparaging it, not only would you benefit, but you would garner a better understanding of the issues which would no doubt change your tainted point of view.
The fact is that you are not the first person to raise the issue. One of the major dilemmas the Canadian grant system has wrestled with for years now is the issue of how to distribute its funding. What is the best way to proceed? Should it give a little bit of money to everyone who asks for some, arguably diluting the impact of the funding to the point of being completely ineffective, but at least fairly and evenly distributed… or should it pick winners with a proven track record of achieving results/success and provide them with substantial, meaningful support so that they may have at least have a chance of actually being competitive in the international marketplace? Sadly, we don’t live in an egalitarian utopia. Being practical is necessary to survive. Consequently, both on the basis of common sense and the fact that, for the funding to continue to exist, demonstrable results that can be highlighted and pointed to need to be achieved, the latter was the chosen strategy. Accordingly, to respond directly to a question you raised, no, I don’t think it would “be great” if our grant system allowed “black sheep to shake things up” and began handing out substantial subsidies to help artists working without “the help of an entity already known” to the funding organizations. I think if they start handing out money to people without a track record of being able to succeed without that money, there can be very little accountability, the effectiveness of the monies distributed will be reduced (even if some unproven entities make the most of it), results will therefore wean and the already precarious renewal of such funding will be put in jeopardy to the detriment of our entire cultural sector. I think that allowing that to happen is what would truly constitute something that would prove to be malignant to our industry.
There is something else that puzzles me about your open letter. In it you lament that you almost never get any money and that so many of the usual suspects are continuously approved for funding in large amounts. I can only assume you are referring to FACTOR since they are pretty much the only organization which has a permanent program to fund showcases, which you claim is the only thing you were ever approved for. What I find strange about that is that, as far as I can tell, Unfamiliar Records has only ever put in one single application, which happened to be for showcase support, and it was approved. With a 100% approval rate, you are doing a hell of a lot better than most. Is it possible you have exaggerated the degree to which your company has been treated unfairly?
Nevertheless, let’s assume that my info on how many times you have applied for and been approved for funding is wrong. Let’s assume you were turned down the vast majority of the time. I presume that Unfamiliar Records is not a Direct Board Approval company at FACTOR. That would mean you are competing with the general population for a relatively small portion of the other funds available, which could explain the relatively infrequent approval rate. If that’s the case, I would suggest to you that those are just the odds. It doesn’t speak to malice. On the flip side, if your company had direct board approval, your projects would not be subject to the “jury process” at all (i.e. to the whims and opinions of the people you call “judges”) or any form of editorial approval with respect to your projects’ merits for funding. If the project was qualified (Canadian artist where master is owned by qualified Canadian company and the album was recorded in Canada, etc), you would be automatically approved for funding so long as there were monies available to be dispersed. Why? Because the funding organizations don’t think it’s their place to tell established companies and entrepreneurs how to run their businesses in terms of what their A&R departments should be doing. Unfortunately, to treat unproved applicants that way would be reckless. I don’t see how you can argue otherwise.
Unfortunately for you, before you can earn access to that kind of direct financial support for your company, you have to prove your worth. You have to go out and achieve success on your own, without their consistent help, in order to establish that by giving you the money, it stands to be put to good use and that you will be able to go out and achieve even greater results with the money than you are already able to achieve without it. Each company that benefits from Direct Board Approval today had to go through the same process you are going through now in order to earn the right to that privilege. Once you have done that, once you have existed for a certain amount of time, put out a certain number of albums and achieved a certain number of sales, acceptance in to the Direct Board Program is essentially automatic (just like the funding). Furthermore, the level of a company’s access to funding within the DBA system is based on performance measured by the results achieved with the money provided, as measured by the sales success of supported projects and the reimbursement levels of the associated loans (not everything is a grant after all). In other words, it’s not the totally subjective, corrupt, relationship based process of subterfuge your letter makes it out to be. It’s mostly a meritocracy with objective measurement systems. Begin to measure up and I am certain you will do very well with all the funding organizations.
Finally, before moving on to the next section of my reply, there is only one more point I want to make on a personal note. You infer that the grant system in Canada is somehow sad, gross and corrupt and that the only way to get money from it is to suck up to its gate-keepers, take them out to dinner and lobby for their support in order that they may elect to support and become one of your benefactors. For the record, I do not live in Toronto (where FACTOR, Starmaker, VideoFACT and most other relevant funding organizations are based) and I cannot think of a single occasion where I have gone to a personal lunch or dinner with any of the representatives of any of these organizations. In fact, I can’t even recall ever having visited any of their offices (except maybe once, at FACTOR’s office, but I never actually had the meeting because the person I was there to see had gotten the time wrong and ultimately chose to cancel on me, even though I had come from out of town). My company does however benefit from Direct Board Approval level funding at FACTOR. It’s not because they like me better than you. It’s simply because we’ve achieved results.
Furthermore, you presume to assert that all that subsidy money is nefariously being siphoned in to coffers of old, rich and lazy industry fat cats sitting in their ivory towers that simply don’t need the money, but that’s nothing short of paranoid and inaccurate. As far as I can tell, some of the most successful companies in the DBA program are young, dynamic companies who haven’t been around for long at all and are run by young people such as me. And I promise you this too, after 8 years in this business, I know many of them and while they may be achieving great success and growing, no one is retiring off the proceeds of their record companies these days. Personally, I am only 29 years old, my company is very young and I certainly don’t have any “money to spare” as you so eloquently put it. Not unlike you, my partner and I started our company with no money, and have struggled on numerous occasions to keep it afloat, holding it together with our own blood, sweat and tears. The fact is, I think you would find that most, if not all, of even the Direct Boars Approval companies are struggling to survive. However, I say with certainty that you won’t find ANY of them with “money to spare”. To the contrary, I can think of a few of the biggest companies in particular whose owners have sustained several years of losses and pumped back in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of their own money (often derived from other businesses) in order to keep their record companies afloat, because they believe in their artists and are loyal to their employees. I’d be very curious to know who exactly you think it is that is swimming in excess cash flow, but even without knowing, I’ll take the bet that you are wrong!
In short, please don’t be so presumptuous as to assume that the whole world is out to get you and involved in some big conspiracy against you and your artists. Put in the time the time, energy and effort just like everyone else, assume the risks that go with that, and one day if you prove yourself on your own and succeed in meeting the objective criteria of success as set out by the programs, you will be entitled to a larger share of the funding pie as well. You are 34 years old sir. I think it might be time to grow up.
WHETHER OR NOT METRIC DESERVES THE CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE CANADIAN GRANT SYSTEM
Now, with the big picture out of the way, let’s move on to your ranting against Metric in particular. Let’s set the record straight on a few of the numerous mistakes you made with reference to Metric. Much of what I am about to write is simply fact. Some of it is simply my opinion.
A) One of your main points of criticism in your letter pertains to the fact that the majority of the grant system money goes to bands under the wings of “well-funded labels with cash to spare”. I’ve gone to some lengths above to dispel any belief that that’s accurate to begin with, and/or unjustified to the extent that there is any truth to it (i.e. that companies with a track record get more money than companies with no record). However, you then specifically chose to focus on Metric as an example of one such artist on one such label. You literally could not be more wrong. Metric used to be on a brand new, young label which was literally founded to put out Metric because “the establishment” you criticize so willingly (and accuse Metric of being a part of) wanted nothing to do with them. Furthermore, they have since left that label and not only do they not currently have a well-funded label behind them, they literally have no label at all behind them. They self-financed their own album, and with our help as management (but without accessing any grants through our company), they have set up their own label (Metric Music International) via which they are self-releasing their most recent album (Fantasies) in over 18 countries spanning the biggest markets in the world (including the USA, the UK, France, Japan, Germany, Australia, etc). In the beginning, the first several hundred thousand of money invested came directly out of the band members’ own bank accounts. They turned down deals from big record companies, mortgaged their houses, drastically cut their personal costs of living and re-invested all the profits from their touring and merchandising businesses (and continue to do so) in order to make a go of being truly independent. And they did it without FACTOR or anyone else’s help in the beginning (which, for transparency’s sake, is not to say that the company to whom we licensed the Canadian rights might not have gotten some grants… I am sure they did, but all the video and tour support grants and other stuff you are talking about in your letter was awarded to Metric Production, not the label, and only after we proved our success). You are right that Metric is now succeeding very well on their own behalf, as their own label, having sold more copies globally of their most recent album Fantasies in 8 weeks than the prior album sold in four years. Consequently, access to more funding is now available to us. However, even still, it’s very much only the beginning. We have far from broken in any country except Canada, and there is so much work left to do that success is far from assured. In other words, we can still use help of the funding organizations. In fact, we need it, without it we could not even have made a go of it internationally, and even with it we are severally underfunded compared to the major label artists we are competing against.
B) Another one of your points speaks to the band’s on the labels getting all the money being “old enough to no longer need the training wheels”. You specifically refer to Metric as “a band who really doesn’t need the government paying their way”. However, in furtherance to my point A) above, and based on the very raison d’être of these funding organizations (as you yourself have recognized it – which is to provide funding to Canadian artists “to help them achieve international success”), Metric is exactly the type of band these funding organizations aim to support! Why? Because they have proven themselves at home, have some international traction that can be built upon, and are therefore ready to take on the international stage while standing a reasonable chance of meeting with success. If the strategy is to back your winners and try and hit a few home runs, then who does it make more sense for these agencies to support at this moment in time? Metric, or a band on your label that may be artistically amazing, but that no one has ever heard of, has no real fan base to speak of and nothing that can be leveraged because the ground work has hardly begun to be laid? To suggest that Metric no longer need support and are more than capable of taking on the international marketplace alone is also absurd. Canada is the only place they’ve had a gold record. In the US, which is their second strongest market internationally, the last record didn’t make it one tenth of the way to gold sales status certification. The merits of their “independent” accomplishments as an artist who chose to go it alone and without a label notwithstanding… even if they were signed to the biggest independent label in Canada, they would still be one of a select few artists who really should be getting financial support because the sum total of the results they have achieved has demonstrated that they have a real shot at international success. Furthermore, even with the maximum amount of funding conceivably availably in addition to the support of a well-funded independent label, we’d still be far out-financed by the major label acts from the US and the UK whose artists we are competing against. For whatever reason, you have chosen to focus on the video grants Metric recently received, so let’s use those to illustrate a point. First of all, are you aware that Metric has so far released three videos on this album (Gimme Sympathy, Sick Muse, Help I’m Alive), only one of which was made with any form of outside financial support (Gimme Sympathy)? As opposed to making a string of videos with reasonably sized budgets, we deliberately chose to make the last two (and the one currently in production for the song Gold Guns Girls – now the 3rd video off this record to be shot without any outside funding support) with very modest budgets precisely so that we could hopefully combine a FACTOR and VideoFACT grant in to one “big” budget that would allow us (with additional investments of our own) to make a proper music video for the next single in order that it may stand a chance of competing with other international artists on major labels with video budgets that often reach in to the hundreds of thousands of dollars (sometimes even more). After all, as I said, these are the artists that we are competing against in the USA and around the world. $60,000 may seem like an astronomical sum, and it is very substantial, but it’s nothing compared to the cost of what some of the competition’s videos are being produced for and it’s money we’ve only been able to secure by sacrificing and cutting back in other areas.
C) You also made the assertion that “what kills you” is “the ability these bands have to market themselves as a result of receiving funding”. You then go on to state that the success we’re seeing them have is a case of “money buying sales”, and “money begetting more exposure, which in turn [also] drives sales”. While the whole point of the grant funding is to take something successful that’s proven itself and provide it with gas to pour on the fire, to purport that these artists you criticize, including Metric, are only successful because someone unfairly chose to give them money over you is totally baseless. First of all, I can list for you several projects I have personally been involved with (and countless that I am simply aware of) where piles and piles of money were thrown at albums to try and make them stick – we’re talking about much, much more money than Metric ever had access to in order to establish themselves – and yet those artists albums never really sold or garnered them any traction. I’m talking about projects which were signed to bigger, established, better funded labels than Metric had on its side when they put out their first record (their original label, at the time of releasing their debut album, was brand new and did not have access to Direct Board Approval at FACTOR either), labels who considered the projects in question top priorities, spent literally hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars to break them (and buy exposure), and still somehow most of them never succeeded in selling even 5,000 records. What does that tell you? If you don’t buy that, look at it another way… If sales success and the breaking of new artists were simply a matter of money and exposure, the major labels would not be in the trouble they are in and we would not be witnessing so many turn table hits with tens of millions in audience numbers from TV and radio airplay, that are simply not able to convert that exposure in to sales. Have you ever heard people joke that the best way to make a million dollars in the record business these days is to start with 5 million and give it a few years. If what you suggest were true, that joke would not be so wildly told. Additionally, I think it’s worth pointing out that Metric achieved all their success prior to this record in spite of little to no airplay or support from mainstream media. Having a hit at radio is a new phenomenon for the band that began with this record. So that also doesn’t line up with your accusations. Our exposure and ensuing success was predominantly organic, based on positive press and a fan base built on the back of arduous touring.
D) Finally, that opens the door nicely to my final point, which I briefly touched on above. You seem convinced that everyone else’s music which is being funded is crap and that all yours is somehow better. I think the quality of music is completely subjective, the same way beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So for you to be so bold as to say that “many of these bands are known to produce “music of dubious value” is more than a little arrogant and presumptuous in my view. But since you seem content to base the assertion that your music is good on the fact that, across your roster you have received great reviews from a host of publications and blogs, based on that criteria, Metric must be outstanding. They have scarcely received a single bad review on this album (% of total reviews must be 90%-95% positive, maybe even more, it’s astounding). Almost invariably the press on Fantasies has been incredibly positive and glowing, including from almost all the publications you listed. And since they’re success was originally very organic and viral, based on positive word of mouth as opposed to radio or video play, evidently a great many real people think so too. I also find it particularly ironic that you would chose to harp on the Polaris Prize and associate it with “music of dubious value” considering it is based on the concept of the Mercury Prize (arguably the world’s most highly regarded music prize) and most of the artists nominated are not particularly commercial, nor do they have substantial sales (they are more like your artists than the artists your describe). It’s the most prestigious, critically driven award in this country. Out of curiosity, I wonder, who would you have put on the short list?
PS: My overhead is extraordinarily low as well. Like you, I only “eat what I kill” to so to speak. I do not hold an outside job, but I also do not draw a salary. Rather, I live off what money the operations of the company can spare from time to time. We run our office of 5 people out of an attic, in a house. So trust me when I say, I know your pain.
Join Our Mailing List
The Swarm
Watch
Watch: Aphex Twin and Die Antwoord at LEDF...
Sources
Top
- Absolute Punk
- Apple Insider
- Ars Technica
- Boing Boing
- Brooklyn Vegan
- Coolfer
- Creativity
- Digital Music News
- Guardian (UK)
- Hipster Runoff
- Hypebot
- Lefsetz letter
- Mediaeater
- Paid Content
- Palms Out Sounds
- Pitchfork
- The Brown Tweed Society
- The Listenerd
- The Playlist
- The Wire
News
- ABC News
- AdCritic
- All Hip Hop
- AOL Music Popeater
- Associated Press
- A.V. Club (The Onion)
- Baltimore Sun
- BBC
- Blabbermouth
- Blender
- Bloomberg
- Blurt
- Boston Globe
- Boston Herald
- Boston Phoenix
- Business Week
- Chicago Reader
- Chicago Sun Times
- Chicago Tribune
- CMJ
- Cnet
- CNN
- Complex
- Crawdaddy
- Current TV
- Daily Mail
- Decibel Magazine
- Denver Post
- Detroit Free Press
- Detroit Metro Times
- Digital Media Wire
- Digital Trends
- DJ Mag
- Drowned in Sound
- Earplug
- Economist
- Editor and Publisher
- Encore
- Encore
- Entertainment Weekly
- Fast Company
- Filter Magazine
- Financial Times
- Forbes
- Fox News
- Gamespot
- Giant Step
- Gigwise
- Harp Magazine
- HHNLive.com
- IGN
- JamBase
- Jam! Showbiz
- Jazz Times
- LA Record
- L.A. Times
- L.A. Weekly
- Live Daily
- Miami Herald
- Ministry of Sound
- Mirror (UK)
- Moco News
- Motley Fool
- MSNBC
- MTV News
- Music Radar
- New Orleans Times-Picayune
- Newsday
- Newsweek
- New York Daily News
- New York Magazine
- New York Observer
- New York Post
- New York Times
- NME
- No Depression
- NPR
- Observer Music Monthly
- Okay Player
- P2P.net
- Paper
- Paste Magazine
- Philadelphia Inquirer
- Punk News
- Red Herring
- Resident Advisor
- Reuters
- Rolling Stone
- Rotten Tomatoes
- San Francisco Chronicle
- Seattle P.I.
- Self-Titled
- SF Weekly
- Silicon Alley Insider
- SPIN
- Spinner
- Telegraph
- The Age (Australia)
- The Fader
- The Independent
- The Observer (UK)
- The Smoking Gun
- The Sun (UK)
- The Times (UK)
- This is London
- Time Out New York
- Twisted Ear
- Uncut
- URB
- USA Today
- Vibe
- Village Voice
- Wall Street Journal
- Wired
- Woooha
- Word Magazine
- XLR8R
- XXL
- Yahoo News
Trades
- AdAge
- Ad Week
- Ad Week
- Billboard.biz
- Billboard.com
- Brand Week
- Digital Audio Insider
- Emarketer
- FMQB
- Hits Daily Double
- Hollywood Reporter
- Mediaweek
- Music Row
- Music Week
- Pollstar
- Variety
Blogs
- AdFreak
- Ad-Supported Music Central
- Alex Ross: The Rest is Noise
- Antiquiet
- Artie Wayne
- Austinist
- Backbeat Online (Denver Westword)
- Bit Player (L.A. Times)
- Blare Magazine
- Brainwashed
- Brainwashed
- Brand Bands Fans
- Brand Upon the Brain
- Brutal Times
- Buddyhead
- Buzz Bands blog
- Buzzmachine
- Can't Stop Won't Stop
- Chicagoist
- Consumerist
- Cosmodrome
- Crazed By the Music
- Crazed Hits
- Creative Review
- Cucharasonica
- Daily Intelligencer (NY Mag)
- Dateline Hollywood
- Daytrotter
- Dealbreaker
- Dlisted
- Download Squad
- Down With Tyranny (Howie Klein)
- Engadget
- Extended Play (L.A. Times)
- Extrawack!
- Filter 27
- Freakonomics
- Freakonomics Blog
- Gawker
- Gizmodo
- Guardian Music Blog
- Hidden Track
- Hidden Track
- Hitsville
- Hunnypot Unlimited
- Hypebeast
- Idolator
- IndieHQ
- Jim DeRogatis (Chicago Sun Times)
- Joe Carducci (Arthur blog)
- Jossip
- Kanye West blog
- Keith Spera (N.O. Times-Picayune)
- KspaceTV
- LAist
- Largehearted Boy
- Let's Earn Stripes
- Live Music Blog
- Mac Rumors
- Mashable
- Michael Robertson
- Music Thing
- Nah Right
- NoiseAddicts
- Oh No They Didn't
- Pampelmoose
- Peach Buzz
- Perez Hilton
- Perfect Sound Forever
- Pop & Hiss
- Popwatch (Entertainment Weekly)
- Post No Bills (Chicago Reader)
- RCRD LBL
- Recording Industry vs. The People
- Rolling Stone Rock & Roll Daily
- Seth Godin
- SitDownStandUp
- Slashdot
- SOHH.com
- Songs for Soap (AdAge)
- Split Screen
- Stereogum
- TechCrunch
- The Long Tail (Chris Anderson)
- The Obelisk
- The Quietus
- The Set List (Variety)
- The Tripwire
- Ticket News
- Tiny Mix Tapes
- TMZ
- Trash Menagerie
- Turn It Up (Greg Kot)
- Valleywag
- Vice Magazine
- Vulture (NY Mag)
- Waxy
- WFMU Beware of the Blog
- Wired Listening Post
Post a comment
Previous comments include
6000+ words?????
Let's face it, Ipp has torpedoed his career.
tl; dr
although now everyone wants to hear about the time Ipp got snubbed by Emily Haines
s.t.f.u.
Yawn. When does that pissing match start? That'll be good!
owned!
See kids, this is why a one-line snarky blog reply doesn't mean you've made a good point! Facts and figures shows a man what kind of turd sandwich he's eating.
So what's the ral story behind this: "your long standing and well known personal bias against Metric (the genesis of which I will do you the courtesy of not airing publicly in this forum for all to read"...
There is no way that was written in just 45 minutes sitting in an airport terminal.
Could have cut the content in half and still made the same valid points. The excessive length loses the audience. Way too verbose.
As for Emily Haines snubbing anyone... Ipp should get in line. Emily is known to be less than polite to fans, industry and media. Her unnecessary negative personal behavior is pretty "legendary" and it does her band a great disservice.
Who doesn't have a personal bias against Metric?
Ipp's just bitter because he feels like the Metric crew stole ever piece of ass he ever had and blocked him from every piece of ass he ever wanted. Clare Edmunston... that's when his hate-on started. He's always been a whiny S.O.B.
lol. Anyone who doesn't think Matt Druin could write something like that in 45 minutes has never emailed with him. Brief is not his strong suit, but the guy can type.
I guess it wasn't Emily who snubbed him after. Haha. Cause she's def no lesbian. I'm thinking it must have been the guitar player... he's HOT!
Oh my. "Nick", you spelled Claire's last name wrong. Emily never snubbed me, she just behaved like a complete twit, which made me question the integrity of the "anti-commercialist" statements made at corporate-sponsored events they were setting up.
Being on the receiving end of a diatribe that supports and venerates a self-professed "indie" band who's credibility I would call tenuous at best, is kind of amazing.
I'm not so concerned about my career as a result of being vilified by this kind of long-winded response. As I've said many times, Metric is an easy target, made easier for me by the ridiculous level of posturing proffered up by some of their members and friends, which demonstrated - to me - nothing but a lack of humility and class when it came to enjoying, accepting, and working with success.
Can we get back to the point I was trying to make, which revolves around grants, insider trading, and important things like where is this money really going, and what is it actually supporting? You know, the whiney stuff.
Didn't he answer all of the questions about the grants, where the money is going, to whom, why it makes sense and isn't a conspiracy blah blah blah in like 5 different ways as it is?
in reality, 99.99% of the human race hasn't heard of Metric, nor care.
bla bla bla bla bla,
tl, dr
metric are the worst
As a Canadian who knows quite a bit about factor and the way it works, I agree with Metric's mgr on this, but I think he left one REALLY important thing out: the gvt funding that allows FACTOR to exist is about to run out and hasn't been renewed yet for future years. The cdn conservative government isn't the biggest fan of subsidies and have previously targeted the arts in particular. They already killed a few other programs entirely. Now more than ever then factor NEEDS to make safe bets on proven entities and hope they pay off because major successes are needed right now to ensure their funding is renewed or no one will be getting any more money real soon. So now is definitely not the time to start becoming more lax with who gets $$$.
I guess a lot of us Torontonians have dubious taste when it comes to the music we love. I just tried to buy tickets to Metric's Massey Hall show which is like 3000 people or so and it was sold out not 20 minutes after it went on sale, DAMN!
Kneejerk, that's exactly the point isn't it? With support, maybe that can change. At least, more likely to be true for Metric then someone who 100% of the world has never heard of or cares about. maybe both bands deserve it, but hard to say either band doesn't need it because they're already too big?!?!?
for all the excuses this douche makes--there is still no doubt that Metric is fucking terrible
none of this changes the fact that metric sucks.
Interesting debate.
I'm not a business person, but I seem to recall an economic principle which dictates that with limited financial resources, in the face of an always greater demand for funds, monies naturally tend to find their way to the projects which provide the greatest return on investment. Seems to be the heart of the issue here.
This does remind me of an old medical conundrum though.
One of the first things we learn as doctors is that everyone deserves to be treated equally and receive first rate medical care. That is a guiding ideology underlying the practice of medicine.
By contrast though, when I started my first rotation in emergency medicine, the head of the ER said "Forget everything you have learned, this is the real world. Here we don't have room for bleeding heart ideologists. Yes, everyone deserves help, but sadly not everyone can be saved. Not by us. Despite what you may think, you are not a God. So first we do triage. Then, if you can, you start with the sickest and work your way back until you have saved everyone. But it doesn't usually work that way. That's life. So when you can't save them all, you go straight to the people whose lives are in danger and you focus first on the patient you have the best shot at saving. Not the one who has the youngest kid, the saddest story, or the most hopeless cause. If life we're fair, we could save everyone. But it's not. Be practical. In this room, when its out of our control and we cant save them all, we leave our hearts at the door and we play the odds."
Emily Haines was nice when I met her, weird but nice (as in touched my hair and made me touch hers when I was visibly weirded out by this).
Greg you should have gone after OLP and Chantal Krevaziuk instead and maybe there wouldn't have been such a shitstorm. Also, that MSTRKRFT vid is dope.
77% not quite 90-95% not bad though:
http://www.metacritic.com/music/artis...
"In the beginning, the first several hundred thousand of money invested came directly out of the band members’ own bank accounts."
Good for them, that'll win the bay st/st jacques crowd over?
Furthermore, you are an industry animal. DKD was a monster of a label in Qc if I remember correctly.
http://www.cirpa.ca/Page.asp?PageID=3...
Congrats on being a teenage entrepeneur, I mean that sincerely. But flashing your independent credentials rings a bit hollow when you've been drawing water from the funding well for a long long time in different capacities.
Also, the age card is lame.
Thanks Mathieu, I will be keeping all of this in mind as our band applies (over and over) to FACTOR. Very insightful, I 100% agree with the point you make about having to lay some ground work before expecting successful applications.
I think part of the problem is that the idea that FACTOR is meant to help "emerging artists" is interpreted by many as "free money for any band emerging from their basement studio". I am fully expecting, especially in the current music and economic climate, to be working every day at getting our music heard, with or without outside help.
I strongly believe that (in most cases), if the music you are making is being pushed and pushed endlessly, and yet no fanbase is forming and you have no progress to speak of, then the time has come to revise the game plan. This can mean that the band is just no good, or that the strategy needs revision, but either way, to quote Green Day "you can't go forcing something if it's just not right".
I appreciate Greg's issue with the hard work he has put in, but perhaps a good idea would be to "work smarter, not work harder".
~Marko of Stagehands
Bigger question... what the hell did Arts & Crafts do with 1.1 million dollars?!
@marko or maybe the jurors are out of touch and need youngblood injected in the selection process.
also ass kissing will no get you a mgmt deal.
@oohchawallywally - Taste is subjective and sometimes great stuff doesn't get a listen. Everyone who is rejected will feel that way for a time, including when my application was rejected the first time. I think that blindly sending in "young blood" to the jury does not guarantee any changes. You're making the assumption that the current jury is not full of real music fans, or people with taste. What if we throw in a completely new jury that is as you say, "young blood"? If you're suggesting that the jury is too old, jaded, or have poor taste, and that's why it's hard for new bands to get grants, then I think you're wrong.
As for your other comment, we're happily self-managed and when the time comes, it will be because we worked for it and were a desirable act, and not because we kissed someone's ass.
I'd love if you explained your "young blood" comment though, to see if I understood you correctly.
That's probably true Greg. I never claimed I knew how to spell her name, then again I wasn't sleeping with her. I've hardly ever spoken to her in fact. I just remember that your anti-Metric crusade started right around when she dumped you and was working with Metric.
I have been staying out of the fray of this for a little while now, but as an owner of a record label similarly sized to Greg's, and I can understand his frustration, and I think the above response while it helps clarify things from the perspective of Metric's participation in such programs, I think it really fails to address any of the inadequiciues in Factor's funding programs.
I differ from Greg, in that I don't really see it to be problematic that a band on the scale of metric has access to this type of funding.
I do however believe there is a role for factor to play in actually supporting smaller independent bands and labels. But it fails miserably at this.
There are countless labels and bands that are successful at a particular scale ie. Tour Nationally and internationaly regularly, critical press and popular support - that are generally shut out completely from the Factor process.
There needs to be a middle ground for Factor to set to help these bands. I threw out the idea on a message board that Factor should set up a development program for smaller labels that have had at least two releases that have sold 1000 copies, distributed nationally and have been in existence for at least two years. The money received by these labels could be capped at maximum of $10000 or something.
I think Mathieu mistakenly thinks that there are bands of the scale of Metric and bands that never leave their basement, and there is no in between and I think that attitude is a real good indication of the mind set that shuts out smaller labels and projects from Factor funding.
The problem with Factor as a whole is that it is so intertwined with the big music industry side of stuff, it fails to recognize there are people successfully doing work outside of that model, that should get support. A support that would have a major impact for a much smaller amount of money spent.
Almost everyone I know that runs small labels has given up on Factor.
While it is true that a lot of the labels that have direct board status did start small, in many many cases these labels were started by people with connections already in the industry.
You can't compare the start of someone like Last Gang to unfamilar, they have very very different starting points. Started by very different people from very different backgrounds.
Top 10 FACTOR Earners since 2005:
Metric - $377,207 - Last Gang/Universal
Trews - $309,193 - Bumstead/Universal
Midway State - $249,865 - Interscope/Universal
Young Galaxy - $215,508 - Arts & Crafts
Sophie Milman - $214,431 - Linus/Universal
Most Serene Republic - $212,807 - Arts & Crafts
Justin Hines - $209,486 - Orange Lounge/Universal
Aaron Pritchett - $192,636 - 604/Universal
Stills - $191,491 - Arts & Crafts
Dears - $188,071 - Arts & Crafts
Thanks to Jay for digging this up.
so what your saying is to get funding you need to be a successful label or band that has the sales numbers to get funding,if not your out of luck. i don't know what everyone else thinks but that seems a little backwards to me
@marko good for you, thought the band plug at the end of your comment was meant as a sly way of getting in the good books, but if not no worries.
my understanding of the jury is that they are remnants of the 90s heydays of the CDN music industry and their disciples (in regards to Factor) maybe i'm wrong. probably not though. lest we forget the supposed indie renaissance in toronto was lead by people who had been through the major label wringer before in various could have been bands.
as to what stuart was saying, i sometimes forget that last gang was started by the biggest entertinment lawyer in canada, because he couldnt get a deal for slan (sook yin lees old band) and maybe metric? but i think slan was the first release.
so i forget my point, something to do with shell games, last gasps, and hopes for recapturing past revenues and vainglorious days.
whatever, there's no denying metric worked their asses off, got jerked around, trials and hardships and all that, but if 99.9% of the world still doesn't know who they are despite $100s of Ks invested isn't it time to see what else canada has to offer?
>>Young Galaxy - $215,508 - Arts & Crafts
all that money for a band that maybe sold
200 units...
Yeah, I can't say I think any of those bands deserved that much money. And I'm not just saying that because I don't like even one out of the bunch...
@Greg/Jay:
You can make numbers says anything. What you posted is a little slanted. If you are going to look at how much the top ten artists got, you have to compare that to the total monies disbursed in order to have perspective.
BY MY MATH, THE TOP TEN ARTISTS GOT LESS THAN 4% OF WHAT FACTOR WILL DISTRIBUTE BETWEEN 2005 AND 2009:
Top 10 FACTOR Earners since 2005:
Metric - $377,207 - Last Gang/Universal
Trews - $309,193 - Bumstead/Universal
Midway State - $249,865 - Interscope/Universal
Young Galaxy - $215,508 - Arts & Crafts
Sophie Milman - $214,431 - Linus/Universal
Most Serene Republic - $212,807 - Arts & Crafts
Justin Hines - $209,486 - Orange Lounge/Universal
Aaron Pritchett - $192,636 - 604/Universal
Stills - $191,491 - Arts & Crafts
Dears - $188,071 - Arts & Crafts
TOTAL: $2,361,000 (approximately)
In other words: over the span of 2005 through 2009 (4 years), FACTOR gave the top ten artists roughly $2.4 million.
BUT, last year alone didn't FACTOR doll out something like $18 million?
CONCLUSION: Let's assume FACTOR dolls out $18 million per year (don't know past years, but National Post says it was 18 million last year so lets use that as the basis), over 4 years then we're talking about $72 million.
SO... $2.4 Million to FACTOR's Top Ten funded artists over a total of $72 million disbursed is 3.33%!!!!
Is it SOOO disproportionate that the top ten artists since 2005 at FACTOR will have received approximately a whopping 3.3% of the total funds distributed over the same period?
Seems pretty acceptable to me...
PS: Greg also said in National Post and here that Most Serene Republic just got $50,000 to make an album. But when Daily Swarm reprinted that, somehow it left out the correction made by the National Post to the effect that it was more like $30k and Greg's figures we're exaggerated by about 65%: (http://www.nationalpost.com/story.htm...)
@ Steve:
No, I think was is being said is that in order to get BIG money, you first have to establish and prove yourself with less support because just because factor's money exists, doesn't mean your are entitled to it. It's a privilege, not a right.
On my last comment we established that the top ten factor funded artists probably got less than 3.5% of the total money awarded by factor. So there IS money going to less established, unproven labels, but to get the big money you need to first prove you know what to do with it.
That doesn't sound backwards at all if you hope that FACTOR money is renewed. If we lose it because it's given to too few people to have an impact or to people who squander it, then none of us will have to worry about not getting our fair share because there won't be any for any of us.
I've been reading on this today and another thing no one has mentioned is that factor gets millions from the radio broadcasters too... so even they aren't just giving out tax payer money.
And then there is the fact that even if some A&C artist got lots of money and hasn't sold yet, factor is not just supporting artists, they are supporting companies who are successful. once you get past the jury process, you are not being judged on the artistic merits of the music and what it sold. If you believe in it and have proven yourself, FACTOR will support you. Typically they only cover 50%, so if you are willing to risk $200k on something that hasn't sold, they'll roll with you. How many artists never broken until their third record?
I don't have a factor DBA company, but I am working on getting there and I have no problem earning that privilege. I just hope by the time I get that far there is still such a thing as factor and it hasn't been buried because we're a bunch of ungrateful industry who can only criticize an organization that pours millions and millions of dollars in to our business purely to help us make great Canadian music.
Doesn't this all seem a little ungrateful to everyone else? If I was outside of our business and read this, I would probably just go, you know what, if you aren't happy with the money and how we're spending it, fine, we'll take it all back and give it to someone who will be?
Is that what we're gunning for here?
Because if all this dissent causes anything, that's probably what it's going to be.
Actually, Erin, FACTOR gave the wrong figures to The National Post. They have subsequently apologized to me. FACTOR offered $50,000 to TMSR in June, and an additional ~$33,000 this year, prior to that, which means I was actually low-balling.
Why don't you read their annual reports (they are all online), so you can see the actual numbers?
What this goes to show is that your 3.3% (which I haven't audited, so I have no idea if it's correct) could go A LONG WAY to supporting labels like ours, or Stuarts. How about that for a flip-side?
Do your homework and don't rely on one single press source to provide you with accurate numbers or balanced articles.
I got to stop reading this. It's absorbed my whole day and is making my blood boil.
There is one last thing I need to say though.
That top ten most funded artists list... it makes it look like major label artists are getting all the money because there is a major label attached to like every one listed except A&C.
But THOSE MAJORS ARE GETTING $0 OF THE MONEY! THEY ARE JUST THE DISTRIBUTORS OF THE LABELS GETTING $ (and A&C should have EMI next to it in that sense).
And from what I can tell, The Midway State is signed to Equator/Remedy and distributed by EMI. Not Interscope/Universal.
So none of that money would have gone to a major...
Erin, it looks to me like this is The Midway State's page on Interscope's website: http://www.interscope.com/midwaystate
Also, if you do more research you will uncover the equity stakes that Universal has in some of the labels they distribute. A&C is distributed by EMI in Canada, by the way. Of course the distributor takes a cut of sales, and of course those sales are impacted by FACTOR funding.
@ Erin K i am also scared shitless that the conservatives will run with this as a "if you can't play nice in the sandbox, we'll cover it up with cement" come the next budget.
even thought factor/starmaker aren't totally gov't funding or maybe not at all?
however, direct board approval for utter shit like canadian idol finalists is a serious misallocation of funds.
i had the misfortune of stumbling into ryan malcom's latest band at nxne a year or two ago. there were 20 people there.
i also can't name a single finalist/winner since him. if the point is making careers, why squander it on sure shot 1 yr, guaranteed recycling bin material?
what stuart and greg have proposed in comments and other places is completely valid, a tiered system, giving smaller bands and labels a leg up.
anyway, i'm getting tired of this, the more info i find out about this, the more i realize the culture industry is really the domain of a priveledged few.
so basically, don't bother, or prepare eat healthy doses of turd if you lack the following credentials:
1)grow up in the greater toronto area, media centre of canada, guaranteed fan base of high school friends, journalists etc.(preferably a performing arts school or private school where you will learn the power of networking)
b) university also works, in this case montreal is a good place to be gives you "cache". plus you have a whole summers worth of touring possibilities
2) come from a wealthy background, preferably with parents in the A&E industry. this comes in handy when you need to go on tour and can't pay rent.
3) barring that, have parents who have been involved and jerked around in the A&E industry so they can hook you up with "the right people" and counsel you on what not to do. also gives talking points to journos, and ins with festival bookers, booking agents, entertainment lawyers, who knew your parents way back when.
4)pay to play, enroll at fanshawe, trebas, etc (music biz schools) they will help you kiss hands and shake babies and indoctrinate you into propagating the myth that the system isn't broke so don't fix it.
5) Sleep with one or more established industry figures (musicians, journalists, label heads, video production companies, etc, anybody with "ins")
Talent? Vision? Not so much. Sure that's helpful but without at least one of the above it's gonna be a long hard trek for you. Sorry for the TL;DR, going to go cry in a corner now.
@ Greg
I checked and The Midway State is licensed to Interscope outside of Canada. But they never received any funding. It was all awarded to their CDN label, which owns the masters. But I got to quit. This is never ending. I just hope we don't ALL end up with no money because we look like a bunch on ingrates.
Did you know that ALL sectors of the arts EXCEPT Music have had their federal funding renewed except music? Maybe that's because they all band together and lobby for money, tout its importance and success, whereas all we seem to be able to do is quibble about how unfairly distributed it is and how ineffective it is.
If it all disappears, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves and you will rank high among those I would consider to be at the root of the problem.
Over and out.
Well Erin, maybe the quibbles are the result of problems in the system, and maybe the system needs to take a good long look at itself. Nobody is calling for an end to grants; what is being discussed here is an expansion of the system so it can be more inclusive, and more adequately represent the diverse musical economy we have in Canada. I would also like to see a closer eye on auditing, so as to prevent the misappropriation of funds, and to demonstrate that the it is NOT a welfare system, as our Conservative government made it out to be.
Yes, Midway State are licensed to Interscope through Equator (Matt's label -- the guy who wrote the above letter). Thanks for pointing that out, as I had previously only dealt with their Interscope reps. The band also happen to be a bunch of really nice young guys!
This Canadian industry info is all new to me and fairly interesting...despite being a little long-winded. But Erin K seems to be the voice of reason here. As an American who has watched wildly talented friends struggle day after day to try and make it in the music industry for years without any funding outside of their part-time shit jobs, I am astonished at all the whining and complaining.
We live in a jealous and subjective society (not to mention a capitalist society). This band sucks, I should have gotten the money, this isn't fair, blah blah blah. Whenever there is a system like this set up (especially in such a subjective area like music), there will be whiners. No matter what you do to the program, someone will be jealous and the whining will commence once again.
Good luck Canadians. I certainly have enjoyed a lot of your music over the years and hope you don't blow it so I can continue to hear new stuff from north of the border.
Also, anyone who takes issue with being grouped together with “well-funded labels with cash to spare” and then says, in the same breath, that the band started their own label and doled out THE FIRST FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OUT-OF-POCKET to get their self-release off the ground, is...clearly not paying attention to the point he's trying to make? I'll leave it at that, for politeness' sake.
Also, if at some point in your GIANT RANT, you had said something that indicated that you hoped NOT to receive public funds in the future, that you see a point afterwhich Metric's taking this finite funding becomes a) an inefficient way to use it and b) tacky as hell, that would've lent you some credibility, too.
I own a label based in Europe which releases all over the world. We have also made the decision to set up distribution all over the world for our artists rather than license to other labels.
So to MC I say only this: if you think starting with a couple of hundred k to try and record, release and market a record in 18 countries is a lot of $, you have no idea what you are talking about. It's a pittance compared to what a major label will spend in a single second tier market like Germany. It's a lot of money for an individual, but nothing for a company attempting to exploit a product on a worldwide scale. It's a lot of money for 4 musicians to put up who clearly aren't yet millionaires, but to me that is to their credit. It doesn't suggest to me that they are wealthy and gluttonous, it suggests to me that they believe in themselves and are prepared to risk everything to preserve their independence and protect their integrity. I think they deserve the utmost kudos!
And as for taking money when it's available, I would do it too. It's easy to say that you would walk away from the money because you didn't think that other people deserve it more, but I have met few people who would turn down this kind of help if it were available to them... Easy to say, unlikely to be done.
I say CONGRATULATIONS to Metric for taking control of and responsibility for their own success and destiny.
Use all the resources at your disposal to succeed. Regardless of what they naysayers may contend, I have no doubt they'd do the same in your position. The only difference probably being that they might not succeed as successfully.
I love Metric. I think they fucking rock!!!
That said, forget that, to me, a few is 2 or 3.
If Metric released their own album in 18 countries, and they spend a "few" hundred thousand dollars (between 4 people who mortgaged their houses) to record and release a record in 18 countries, that's like 10-15k per country. I spent more than that fixing my kitchen and building a nursery. And I ain't rich. So between recording and marketing in each country, it doesn't seem like that much money, it seems like some musician with balls who said fuck the man and risked it all...
They make me wanna give them money for being so fucking rad and doing what no one else who wasn't already famous has had the balls to do!
Who else do you know that wasn't already famous released and funded their own album around the world and kicked ass and broke the way Metric is breaking. I've been a fan for years and I can't think of anyone else. Clap Your Hands an say Yeah... sure, in the US, and not like Metric is breaking. In the indie circles sure, but not straight through to the domain of the major labels.
To that other whiny dude, I say go home with your tail between your legs man!
My father used to say that those who can't, teach. Those who can, do. Looks to me like your not more than a proverbial teacher Ipp!
How long before a post appears after submission ?
For fks sake...
@ Christophe + @Seb
I wasn't claiming that majors spend only a couple thousand dollars, or that that's a sufficient amount of money for a worldwide release. I was pointing out that they have plenty of money to GET THEMSELVES OFF THE GROUND AND GET STARTED, a point Mathieu conceded himself.
But I take issue with this badge-of-honor self-release garbage that Metric (and others like them) spit out. Like they're Dischord records or a hard-up tryin-ta-make-it kind of band. Metric are using major-label channels, major-label connections, HIGHLY-paid old-school commercial radio promoters (in the states at least), and the like. They are putting plenty of money into mainstream ad dollars and promotion, no question. (I wouldn't be getting so many damn emails about them if they weren't.)
I don't know Greg. Shit, I haven't been to Canada in a decade, either. But his primary point - namely, that there needs to be a reevaluation to BALANCE the mainstream support with the lifting up of artists RIGHT on the cusp - strikes me as perfectly valid. Moreover, I think any institution around for about this long, that's made some close friends and probably looks to them first + foremost, needs to check itself every once in awhile, find an impartial way to make sure they're doing their job as a nonprofit as well as they possibly can.
The funny thing is, I bet Mathieu would agree. I think he's mostly just pissed that Greg doesn't like his band, and that people like me don't respect their DIY hypocrisy.
Ok, My first post didn't show up. Did it go to another site or what?
Metric were a band that I mentioned along with a number of others; I appreciate that Matt is passionate about the music, and about their intentions. It took me some time to decide how or if I was going to respond to this letter, and after some deliberation, I've settled upon the following, which is disgustingly tl,dr even for my tastes:
A prologue for the sake of those who care to follow along and keep score:
Matt sits on the CIRPA (Canadian Independent Record Production Association) board of directors -- CIRPA are the body who actually started FACTOR, and is chaired by Bernie Finkelstein (the same guy who is behind the private VideoFACT grant system, and True North, a production and recording company). Chris Taylor sits on the CARAS (Canadian Academy of Recording Arts and Science) board of directors. CIRPA and CARAS serve different purposes in Canada; CARAS is a not-for-profit umbrella organization that - amongst some pretty nice altruistic programs to give instruments to kids - manages the JUNO awards. CIRPA is intended to be a lobbying and representative platform for Canadian record labels. While CIRPA may be independent in name, all of the members on their board of directors have major label ties (directly or indirectly). If you look at the list of top ten FACTOR funded artists since 2005 (in Cdn $), every single one can be traced to the CIRPA and CARAS directorial boards. I am not suggesting conspiracy, I am simply stating the facts here. To portray Last Gang - or yourself, Matt - as industry outsiders, or "some unknown indie label", is to disregard the personal histories of those involved in the label, and start fresh based on the label name alone. Yes, that works when it comes to marketing.
"Indie" has become a very convoluted term in this industry. Metric is taking a mixed approach to distribution of the album: Last Gang - the company Chris Taylor (also a highly regarded entertainment lawyer in Canada) funded and who are distributed by Universal - is still releasing Fantasies in Canada. Do I think Last Gang has a connection to the Canadian music establishment that I have criticized? I sure do. Does the affiliation with Last Gang give Metric continued access to Direct Board Approval FACTOR loans? It sure does. I am not saying they will use them, but I will say that the opportunity still exists.
Based on your note, I am not convinced, Matt, that you read my original letter fully, and I am almost positive that you didn't read any of the subsequent follow-ups, because you would know that I have pointed out the private nature of VideoFACT numerous times. You probably also don't know that one of the key VideoFACT personnel has not only been receptive, but astonishingly helpful in her approach towards my arguments and suggestions. It's been refreshing, and informative. She was not condescending, she was not mean, and she was not personal. I have the utmost respect for her, and you know what? It might just help me see the other side a bit more clearly as a result.
As has been stated many times, Unfamiliar, historically, has not submitted under our label name for our bands (we did it once). The money is supposed to go to the bands. We do help them with connecting to grant writers, and in looking over the submissions, but we want the bands to have 100% of that money, because it is theirs. Not ours. Japandroids, Brasstronaut, and The Paper Cranes were all denied grants, so we are 1 for 4, with many hours of wasted effort filling out the forms -- because you know, you can do that online :). Anyway, say what you will about our band's music - love it or hate it, I won't hold it against you - but each has received a great deal of critical appreciation and public affection when we have been able to invest in marketing for them and get their releases into the hands of the music-listening public. The bands will prove themselves, whether the boards fund them or not, because - we think - they are really fucking good. We are not simply asking for money so we can take a cut, we are asking for assistance in furthering their careers. Oh, and yes, we're batting zero with VideoFACT.
Regarding the success of the bands who receive FACTOR money, I implore you to study the SoundScan results for the most heavily funded of these artists, and then work your way down the list. I've looked a lot of this up already, and it's not pretty. It's not without it's share of winners (almost all in the low to mid-level range), but it also shows that the failure rate is similar to what you might expect when dealing with A&R in general. That is to be expected, so my suggestion is to look beyond the reaches of the "known entities" because there are very fertile pastures out there. Give it a shot, and you might discover something genuinely new. Also, success rates outside Canada have not been fantastic, with SoundScan numbers often falling off dramatically for key releases that have even done well or marginally well domestically. If our goal is to export our success, perhaps we are not exporting the right success? That seems to be what some numbers are telling us. Then again, maybe we need MORE Nickelback and Celine Dion, if that's the ultimate goal (which to me, it is not).
Now, I would love it if you revealed the sources for your industry statistics. I am not doubting them, I just want to know where they come from. According to IFPI and SoundScan, when it comes to actual sales, Canada slots in exactly where it should (somewhere around Australia, but well - well - below the USA, UK, Japan, France, and Germany). So you are suggesting that Canadian bands make so much money from touring and merchandise that their actual income balloons to the point where the overall value of our domestic industry is actually on par with the US and UK? And you are saying that this is the result of FACTOR touring grants? Those touring grants are great, and I would really be excited to know that they are capable of resulting in such a high return. For reference, you can find my statistics as published by the IFPI and SoundScan. They're also available on the Heritage Canada website.
Direct Board Approval is simply a method for rewarding success in the terms outlined by the system as it stands. Of course I am not going to agree with it. But are you suggesting that DBA results in a higher likelihood of successive successful releases? Can you explain why? Because damn, if we can find a proven solution to the sophomore slump, I'm all for it. :) I think DBA is one of the biggest flaws in the current system.
You say, "If a company cannot survive without life support from grants or other artificial outside revenue assistance sources, perhaps some might argue it should not exist at all." This leads me to an article written in NOW Magazine by Benjamin Boles, which quotes the guys who run Arts & Crafts as stating:
---
“Those grants have kept us afloat,” [ Kevin ] Drew claimed.
“I wouldn’t say that the grants have kept us afloat,” [ Jeffrey ] Remedios corrected, “but they have allowed us to punch above our weight class.”
---
Remedios is careful to correct Kevin here, so I would guess the truth is somewhere between the two. Perhaps you wanted to say this to them, not me, because we are surviving without funding. We're barely surviving, because this is a shitty, failing industry, and we're trying to grow bands from nothing, but we're surviving. And I would love to punch above our weight class.
"In the beginning, the first several hundred thousand of money invested came directly out of the band members’ own bank accounts." This really speaks for itself, Matt. You are telling me that after receiving over $300,000 from FACTOR, and with hundreds of thousands of combined dollars in bank accounts, you somehow profess to portray this band as hard up, in any way? I am not saying they live like kings, I am saying that they make a living, period. Why does that living require life support in the form of government funding if there are hundreds of thousands of dollars for them to invest in themselves? There is an article in Eye Weekly in which the band defends it's "indie" status by saying they only played an afternoon set at Glastonbury. Coupled with their corporate sponsored festivals (i.e. the Metric-curated Rogers Picnic), and their own recording studio, it really does look to me like they're doing just fine, but aren't particularly genial about their success. There also seems to be an ardent desire to defend this whole "indie" thing for the sake of retaining what a marketing guy might call an "edgy image".
At the risk of sounding like a bitch, I am going to refute a couple claims you make: Fantasies is sitting with a 77% aggregate on www.metacritic.com (which I consider to be the best aggregation source around), not 95%, and yes, it is certainly Metric's best album to date if you were to go by critical assessment. Pitchfork gave them 64%, which is probably where I'd peg it myself. They have had the support of VideoFACT since their first album, which I am sure helped with the word of mouth.
"$60,000 may seem like an astronomical sum, and it is very substantial, but it’s nothing compared to the cost of what some of the competition’s videos are being produced for and it’s money we’ve only been able to secure by sacrificing and cutting back in other areas." Who is the band's competition? Eminem? Because I promise you, $60,000 is a hell of a sum for a video these days. If you don't think so, take a trip to videos.antville.org, and ask them about budgets. The resulting mess will look something like this comments section.
"You seem convinced that everyone else’s music which is being funded is crap and that all yours is somehow better." I do not. I simply mentioned a few bands, and you and yours happened to take it very personally. I received emails from other people I have made reference to, had nice chats, and moved on. In fact, Bedouin Soundclashes first label were very nice and pragmatic about it, and were more interested in discussing facts regarding their first two releases (which were not directly FACTOR-funded even though they are in FACTOR's "Success Stories" section of their Annual Report).
Now, one of the things you've mentioned is the results of these grants going to just the right places. I would be curious if you'd like to self-audit that $300,000 and demonstrate the way in which the money has been spent. Specifically, things like supplemental tour costs (who? why? how?), and allocation of dollars for the production of the various videos. Since it is public money, it seems fair enough to suggest that those who receive the money show culpability regarding it's use. I have a few airline tickets I can show you that makes up the sum total of the money we spent our grant on - we got half of one of our bands to Montreal from Vancouver for Pop Montreal, and an associated tour, and we were fucking thrilled that it happened!
I won't give you my Polaris short list but I will say that I sure as hell hope Fucked Up win.
... and if I had a house with an attic and the ability to employ five people, this conversation would not be happening.
(If you're not Matt and you're still reading this: Thank you. You just spent far too much of your precious time reading the blathering of an angsty independent record label guy, and I applaud your fortitude. Total words? About 2000. With that, I humbly bow out of this discussion for now, as - like Matt - I have some actual work to do. I appreciate all the support so far, and I hope these ideas continue to be discussed. I feel that it's important, and that it is possible to affect change through dialog, as long as people are open to it.)
Are these the "impressive results" he speaks of?
"Canada is the only place they’ve had a gold record. In the US, which is their second strongest market internationally, the last record didn’t make it one tenth of the way to gold sales status certification."
Hint: If you are a musician - DON'T PLAY POP MUSIC! Who wants to listen to these type of people all day long?
Yo MC:
I don't particularly like Metric to tell you the truth. I'm not in to it really.
Even so, love em or hate em I think what they are doing is RAD and deserves MAD PROPS!
I have one question for you, and maybe I am missing something because there is a lot of shit to read here, but...
You say you don't respect Metric and their manager's DIY hypocrisy. So help me under stand that, e.g. where the hypocrisy is.
D.I.Y. = Do It Yourself, right?
It seems Metric got off their indie label, turned down major label offers, and with the help of their manager (a young entrepreneur who worked his way up at an independent label and then left to start his own company, with his own money), paid for their own album, with their own money, set up distribution and hired people to work their record all around the world in multi-countries, and now they doin better than ever b4 with no outside help...
Where is the hypocrisy there again?
Which part are they not "doing on their own".
Gotta say, even though I don't like the band, you lost me there man.
w.t.f does it matter if the manager used to work at a big indie label or made money before he did it, and w.t.f. does it matter if the band had some success before they chose to do it that way? They still stuck their nuts on the line, dove off the deep end without a parachute and are swimming on their own, taking all the risk and making it work for them.
Plus, I don't know what to call hat band if not indie? It's not like they are daughtry or some shit.
@ JGrimmer:
I think the "impressive results" Metric's manager is talking about are not what Metric accomplished with the money, but the fact Canada's artists seem to generate more $ then those of any other country other than US and UK even though have way less people, and he thinks its thanks to gvt $ because it wasn't like that before
"... and if I had a house with an attic and the ability to employ five people, this conversation would not be happening."
Ah...the jealousy. The root of all whining.
Ah...stupidity, the root of all misinformed opinions.
Hey Greg,
I've known Matt for a long time. We've talked about Canada being the second or third biggest producer of musical talent in the world. I'm not sure where he sources that quote, but I can tell you that I asked the same question vis a vis IFPI placing Canada as the 7th (I think it was) biggest recorded music sales market in the world and my thinking that that was contradictory to his statement. His answer made a lot of sense.
Your IFPI statistics are based:
1) Only on sales of music that occur in Canada. In other words, Avril and Celine's sales (or those of any other CDN artist) in other markets outside Canada don't factor in. IFPI is measuring the size of the Canadian recorded music market, not the size of the recorded music market dominated by Canadian artists.
2) On revenues of Canadian companies and their sales in Canada (including sales made by domestic major label divisions, whether of Canadian or international artists). Again, you are looking at the size of all recorded music sales in Canada when you look at IFPI stats on Canada, not the amount of recorded music sales attributable to Canadian artists.
So, when artists like Nickelback, Michael Buble, Avril Lavigne, Nelly Furtado, Bryan Adams, Arcade Fire, Sarah McLaughlan and SO MANY OTHERS sign to US (or other) major labels and then sell all over the world, that's not in your IFPI numbers for Canada.
Also, the fact that so many of those artists DO sign outside of Canada, with the bulk of the money made from those artists sales flowing back to companies outside of this country, is a big part of the problem and one of the main reasons Heritage Canada wants to deploy the money from the Canada Music Fund through FACTOR and their other initiatives to build strong companies, not just support individual artists. They want to build good companies here so that we don't have so much of a talent drain, because right now most of our big artists (who often draw FACTOR and CDN govt funding in the early days) ultimately sign to labels outside of this country who can offer better odds of success... a reality that from an economic standpoint makes sense for the gvt to want to counter.
Plus, obviously, as you said, IFPI only takes recorded music sales in to account. So... I haven't done this, but...
If you take the biggest, best selling artists of recent years and look at their record sales ALL AROUND THE WORLD, and then look at the touring, merchandising and publishing business that they do and add that all up, I think you would be hard pressed to think of a country that ranks above Canada other than the US and the UK for having a bigger share of the global, English language music market.
(NOTE: In re-reading Matt's note, he references Canadian artist sales worldwide. Again, SoundScan does not support the claim that our FACTOR-funded artists would contribute significantly to the numbers he gave. Our biggest exports: Celine Dion, Nickelback, Avril, Michael Buble, and the like would be the ones shouldering any kind of significant impact Canadian artists had on an international level. His own band, in his own words, and who have received more FACTOR money than another band, have completely failed to have a sales impact outside Canada. There is only one Feist, folks.)
@Chizmo: You are not seeing the point here. "Indie" is a misused term, to say the least. My view of indie is to be without direct ties to major label support and distribution: Not just NOW, but in the formation and development stage. Metric are not without that even in their current state; they are still distributed within Canada by a label with major distribution (Universal) and Direct Board Approval (government subsidy). The music industry has fragmented as a result of flagging sales, and one of the ways in which the majors are trying to capitalize on "indie" is by setting up relationships with affiliated "boutiques" through which they can peddle their wares, and potentially profit off mid-level acts they otherwise would've have looked at twice.
DIY is not DIY when you've received $300,000 in public funding. Independence has always meant a disassociation from the majors; that is not the case here. What you are seeing is an example (there are many) of skilled market positioning.
I think you need to take a look at the way in which the system works again; otherwise we'll sit here arguing about semantics all day, which will go absolutely nowhere.
@CN: That was a joke.
@Seb Ganz: See above. Show us the numbers that draw direct correlation between the high-level FACTOR-funded artists and large international success for Canadian bands.
@Daniel: You posted that before my last comment was published, which addressed that issue. My assertion is that it is NOT the high-level FACTOR-funded artists who may be responsible for these statistics (which I still can't find!). Celine, Avril, Nickelback, and Buble are not funded by FACTOR... so where does the argument that FACTOR is resulting in this success come in? I also can't find any grants for Arcade Fire since 2005. Nor Feist, for that matter.
@ Seb Ganz:
Ok good. So we're on the same page.
Metric are not the ones providing "impressive results".
So why are they giving them this much money?
@Jgrimmer I think that honour goes to Our Lady Peace and Chantal Kreviazuk.
Apparently getting straight and to the point is not this guy's strong suit - nor, apparently, is being polite and even-tempered.
He sounds like an angry self-righteous snob jacking himself off with his keyboard.
3 things Vancouver doesn't like :
1.)Greg Ipp
2.)Metric
3.)Clair Edmunson
Please stay where you are, we're doing just fine.
PS: Can I touch it?
@The City Of Vancouver -- Hah! That was pretty amazing. :D
@JGrimmer
Actually, if u didn't notice, I think that what Metric are doing is really impressive, not matter where the money they are doing it with is coming from.
But it seems to me that wasn't the guys' point.
I have been reading all of this and I think he was saying that since these funding outfits have been in place in Canada, a lot of the artists that got money over the years went on to great success, even if their successful albums weren't the ones the outfits funded.
It doesn't seem to be a direct cause and effect thing, more like an observation that before Canadian artists' success was more in line with the size of the country, and since the outfits came along, the success of Canadians has increased to a level that isn't in proportion any more.
With lots of the currently stars having got money before they went on to sign with Sony and got big type thing, and the timing of Canada's coming parallel to this grant system being put in place, I dunno, no one else thinks the two might be linked?
I haven't seen anyone suggest that it's not true that Canada's actual dominance only happened after the grant system was in full force, or say what else might explain Canada's position if not the grants.
If it is true, and feels that way, then these outfits have got to be getting something right don't you think?
Besides the fact that it seems the top 10 artists funded over the last 5 years only got 3.5% of total money given out (which seems fair and balanced to me by the way), does anyone know how much of the money Metric got ($377k I think it was) went to them versus the label the label they were signed to before (which I presume is very different from the money going to them, a point Greg himself made)?
Does nobody else reading this think that since Metric is now totally independent and is paying for, recording and releasing/licensing their own albums at this stage, the only think we should be really looking at if we're going to be judging them is how much money FACTOR has given TO THEM, for THIS ALBUM as opposed to given to other people for past records?
Can anyone tell me how much that is?
>>> To j Grimmer's comment: Assume we're not questioning the validity of factors apparent guidelines, and they are giving artist like Metric a lot of money because what other artists that qualify are doing better than Metric?
@Greg
See Seb Ganz' answer. He got it right. It's not direct cause and effect necessarily. It's the observation that since factor and its elk have been around Canadian music has gotten far stronger, so they're doing something right.
That's what I meant.
And I don't know why we're stopping at 5 years ago, but the fruits of factor's investments can easily be from seeds planted further back than that. All those artists have been signed to majors for 5 years or more I'd guess, but what about before that. And I am pretty sure Feist, which is on A&C, has gotten factor support in the past. Plus, why are we only talking about factor. Why aren't we also looking at Videofact, starmaker, CCA, etc?
FACTOR's online records only go back to 2005.
Everything stated above is pure conjecture, without showing sources for the numbers that are supposed to validate any of it. Unless Seb Ganz and Daniel are just choosing not sharing their source for this information (which in Daniels' case seem to be Matt himself).
Let's also - if you're going to take this route - see if someone can provide numbers regarding what Celine Dion, Nickelback, Micheal Buble, Avril, Rush and Sarah Mclachlan did receive from FACTOR, in what capacity, and if those grants were made before, or after the bands' success. Sure they are listed in the "Success Stories" section of the Annual Report, but as I have said before, some of those success stories are not necessarily attributable to FACTOR, and the certifications are within Canada, only.
I have discussed VideoFACT. I do not have enough information on Starmaker to discuss it with the level of understanding I feel is necessary to form a valid argument.
Kate, they are still signed to that label. I have asked Matt to provide an audit of the money.
Anyway, this is veering wildly from the point. Opinions are fine. I'm just looking for facts.
I decided to put Erin's numbers to the test. Last year, FACTOR awarded $11,660,214 in loans (where The National Post got their $18 million figure, I don't know, but I am quoting FACTOR's own annual report here). Of that, $1,601,011 was awarded under the Collective Initiatives program (the largest chunks of which went to fund CARAS and CIRPA)
This leaves $9,999,203 for bands/labels/etc.
I will now modify Erin's response to use these updated figures:
"In other words: over the span of 2005 through 2009 (4 years), FACTOR gave the top ten artists roughly $2.4 million.
BUT, last year alone didn't FACTOR doll out something like $9.9 million?
CONCLUSION: Let's assume FACTOR dolls out $9.9 million per year, over 4 years then we're talking about $39.6 million.
SO... $2.4 Million to FACTOR's Top Ten funded artists over a total of $39.6 million disbursed is 16.5%!!!!"
So Erin, looks like you exaggerated your numbers by about 500%.
It's frustrating to watch people pull numbers our of thin air, rather than looking at the reports. If FACTOR are publishing inaccurate numbers, that is something they are welcome to clarify.
Sigh. I added an extra one in my excitement with the calculator. That should read 6%, which is only a 100% exaggeration. I'm sorry.
Metric's MANAGER posted this? Yikes! An effective retort should reveal MORE than just the nauseating arrogance of its author. The band might want to have a little chat with this dude before he alienates their entire fanbase with more of the same.
Ipp is a fucking champion.
2009: The year Michael Jackson and music criticism died, Pirate Bay went legit and Canadian civil war broke out on the swarm.
Hah. Thanks!
Anyway, I am going to offer a few thoughts on potential solutions, which will likely be where I let this thread continue where it may. After 70-some-odd comments, I am happy with the way in which my position as been represented, and I've enjoyed the criticism and agreements. So:
1) Elimination of DBA
2) Implementation of a tiered level of grants such as what Stuart Duncan suggested above (1,000 units being an initial low-level goal). This will create a barrier of entry for bands who have shown they can be proven viable, or at least, who have shown they can pay back on a small investment. Percentages on the lower level loans would naturally be much higher in order to facilitate a return on investment.
3) Utilizing the tiered system to reward success in much the same way that Starmaker does.
4) Financial caps put on money that is given to both bands and labels, which works on a sliding scale keyed to the rate of return they have provided in the past. Again, rewarding success, but putting a limit on it so as to keep a focus on development rather than welfare-like subsistence. I think this would also limit a DBA-approved labels' ability to use FACTOR for expensive A&R projects.
5) A clear distinction between bands and labels/management/other controlling parties in the application process which allows for in-depth analysis on who the money is going to. This also allows for a percentage system to develop based on how much is given to labels/managers/etc vs. bands.
6) Clear, in-depth auditing of funds once they leave the hands of FACTOR.
7) Stronger representation across the board for truly independent parties.
Each of these are just ideas. This is not a cohesive mandate, but a starting point. I feel we need to start somewhere if we're going to make an attempt to really tap into the quality of artistry we have in Canada. In which I can answer to Matt: Yes, I really do think we have, in our country, a large number of incredibly talented people, and it is this talent which shows itself in our successes; it's not simply the work of funding bodies, labels, or altruistic people with lots of money. And yes! I think we need funding to keep up our current pace, but I believe it can be implemented more fairly and effectively.
Wow.
What a read - all the way through - comments and all. Mostly smart, well-thought out stuff (...and only a smattering of stupid shit.) I'm impressed - not patronizing.
I always did like touring/playing up there.
One of the most important things FACTOR looks at is a band's track record. You have to have a sizeable fanbase. Who else is going to come to your shows and buy your records? It doesn't matter how good the band is, or how much potential they have. FACTOR isn't going to just jump on board and say, "Here! Have some free money!" They want to see that you've done the leg-work and that you have a following. If your band is really that substantial and amazing, prove it with your fans. You could be the most ridiculously awesome band out there, but if you have no one to listen to you and support your music, you're going to sink. If the jurors wanted to gamble, they'd go to a casino.
I'm not fluent with all of the players in this dispute, but I have closely read this ongoing dialog. I have five brief comments.
.
1. RE: Mathieu Drouin Too Long / Too Arrogant
The tl;dr comments are disappointing. Mathieu clearly states he has a small window to engage in this debate and that he wants to be comprehensive (likely without much editing).
If you cannot or will not accept commentary/data from someone who is intimately involved in the situation - and who disclaims the length in advance - then you have no part in an educated discussion on the topic.
.
2. RE: Canadian Grant System
As a community of musicians you have access to something very special. I know a great many local Philly/NYC bands trying to break national, and the two options are to pay for recording/pressing/distrib out of pocket or shop to a label that will inevitably screw them. I wish we had some sort of 3rd party support here.
.
3. RE: Relative Critical Value of Metric
Past all of the data about sales and quibbling over critical rankings, the point is that Metric's record has been received positively by a majority of press, and is raising the cache of Canada's music scene as a whole - just like (and I shudder to invoke her) Sarah McLachlan did in the 90s. I'm not a fan of hers, but she opened the door to a lot of other Canadian artists for us in America - even those of us who didn't like her. Do not underestimate that success does trickle down once a few bigger acts pave the way, in the form of press coverage and audience reception.
.
4. RE: "Money from their own pockets"
Everyone is jumping over how much money Metric had in their bank accounts. Read the entire section - they all put their entire lives into hawk to produce Fantasies independently - savings, homes, and merch sales. That represents a huge personal risk, but it also gives them a tremendous stake in their own success. That is how music *should* work, and that kind of band is a good value for the gov't to invest in - because they have existing connections and are already highly invested in yielding success. It wouldn't make sense to give a fifth of that money to an unknown band without much of a record or a personal financial stake in the situation. You have to DIY to a certain level, and Metric certainly has done that.
.
5. RE: Greg
I am an outsider, and you are coming off very negatively to me - your potential customer. I don't say this as an ad hominem attack - just as kind advice.
Your online dialog exist in perpetuity, and you should strive to maintain a level of thoughtful, reasonable discourse that you'd expect in return from colleagues as well as future consumers. When you are in the position of Mathieu/Metric (and I sincerely hope you will have the chance to be), there will be someone fighting their way up beneath you who is equally as convinced that your work is shit. I hope you can be considerate of that perspective.
.
Best - P
Matt...You couldn't write such a well thought out and complete letter in 45 minutes! Did you hire a professional 'grant writer'?
Al
Love how Greg keeps referring to Matt's 6000+ word letter/essay as a 'note'!
Great stuff, look forward to Matt's next 'note' in response.
how long do i have to look at this thief on the front page? this guy is known around montreal for ripping off local musicians + not paying royalties. he even has the audacity to brag about it. dude is bad news.
A former Montreal artist working for a Toronto based DBA company:
Greg,
RE Clear, in-depth auditing of FACTOR funding:
FACTOR does do in depth audits of all funds distributed. For each file I close regarding DBA funding, I have to outline the approved budget, corroborate any changes made to the budget and why (which changes need to be pre-approved by FACTOR in advance if we expect them to be accepted), then I have to substantiate the money spent by submitting original copies of all related receipts/invoices, as well as proof of payment in the form of original canceled checks(with a bank “cashed” stamp on them). More in depth still, FACTOR randomly sends independent, third party chartered accountants to perform on site audits of original documentation for files completed in the way outlined above, which they conduct annually on a random basis.
How much more “clear and in-depth” do you think it can get? Do you think you should be allow to see the product of these audits with your own eyes? Short of that, how much clearer can it get?
What entitles you to be some kind of judge and jury of FACTOR and the way it operates, because it seems like that's what you want? If you are not happy with the way the $ is spent, you think you should be able to go over it all with a fine tooth comb and log your objections. The information they provide is already pretty in depth... so I ask again, what more do you want exactly?
Sorry - just read all the way to the bottom:
Matt the creep – As a former Montreal based artist, I have had contact with Matt. Not much, I would not say we are friends or anything (after alk, he didn’t sign my band – lol), but for what it's worth I found him to be one of the nicer record people I have met "in the biz". He was very polite, listened to everything, and actually took the time to tell me why he didn’t think our project was for him + gave some constructive advice that helped (obviously not enough, but hey).
Anyway, Montreal is a small scene, especially in music, so people know each other, and for what it's worth I have not come across a single artist that had a bad experience with Matt (as an aside, the fact Metric, who are notoriously difficult and quick to fire their people, have kept him on so long is a testament to something) save one: Islands. Not saying there aren't any, just that most artists he's worked with whom I know have been from Montreal and I never heard anything bad, except from Nick Diamonds, who even tore in to him in Chart magazine last year. I’ve heard him go off about "Matt the devil" more than once besides that too. I’ve also heard the other side of that story...
I def don’t know all the details, so I am only talking about what I heard, but it has something to do with the fact that paying royalties and owing royalties is two separate things. I heard Nick had his publisher audit the label and turned up $0. Personally, I think it might be interesting to hear directly from some of these many artists who Matt has supposedly ripped off personally...
Nick, if this is indeed you writing that post, and I am sure it is, you’ve probably guessed who I am now too, so I am sure I will hear from you (or about how you are ripping in to me too now), but as a former band mate of yours once said to me about you “I’ve never known anyone more skilled than Nick at telling another person to fuck off for not doing him a favor well enough”. Case here?
by the way - didn't Equator let you out of your deal even though they had an option left because you wanted to move on after he refused to manage your 10 person band for less than 10%? And then didn't your record kinda tank?
@Former Mtl artist working for Toronto based DBA
I really need to stop spending so much time responding on here, but this warrants a word --
Speaking from a position of power (i.e. from the DBA side) will result in a natural inclination towards perpetuating the cycle as it stands. I've received emailed from people who have stated - unequivocally - that their requests to have audits of the funds they were supposed to have been paid for services rendered and billed under FACTOR loans were denied. The official word was that once the funds are out of the hands of FACTOR, they were no longer responsible for ensuring they were disbursed as intended.
I have a couple pieces of invoicing software here. I can write up whatever invoices I want. I can then make sure my books are in line with the invoices.
As far as what more can be done? Public audits for funds spent publicly might be a good start. Perhaps additional assessment regarding what the funds are used for?
An example: If a band can't afford a tour bus, or to bring their friends on tour without government support, should that tour bus or their friends really be paid for with taxpayer's money (either directly or indirectly)? I've seen too many examples of padded budgets being passed to ignore the fact that it happens too often.
Calling out Nick Diamonds without knowing for sure it was him who made the statement, and hiding behind a screen name is quite cheap.
Matt's long-winded, but he's right.
His best point concerns Canada's foreign success and I agree completely that it all comes back to the support CDN artists are able to receive as they develop.
Talent is universal but young Canadians in the music businesss are much more sophisicated in their approach to career development than their American and British counterparts. This is due in large part to all the assistance that Matt Drouin talks about.
I would have no problem revealing who I am except that I have a job and an employer that I have to worry about.
Know tho that I don't make a big salary and have nothing vested in this company. It's just a pay check (and not a big one) that keeps me sort of close to what I love and I do it so I don't have to work in a call center. That's it. So my opinion here is my own. Period.
But if you have a problem with me hiding behind a screen name, what about the person that just called this dude out as a thief? It's cool for him to hide behind a screen name? What's good for the goose should be good for the gander don't you think? Or is your whole rhetoric about fair, balanced and transparent really just a one way street when things don't go your way?
On the other thing, I don't understand who is requesting an audit in your example, but if you mean a third party asking for substantiation of how a grant was spent by a company it was awarded to, of course factor is not going to show you that. It's none of your business and would probably violate the contract they signed with the applicant. No matter what you say though, and just check the rules, factor definitely substantiates all expenses on each file before paying them out.
Yeah, maybe you could create an invoice that is fake and submit it along with a check written but never sent. But can you open up a bank account you control, in the name of a supplier you didn't actually use, then write yourself a check to that bank account, cash it and then get the canceled check back from the bank and send it to factor to close the file and get paid? Because that is what you would have to do if you wanted to "fake" an expense being paid to a third party while pocketing the money and getting 50% it reimbursed from factor at the same time. If you know how to do that so easily, then I think you are the one we should be worried about.
That and oh by the way, nobody seems to be mentioning the fact that to get money, you have to put up money. So if you want $40k from factor, you have to somehow being investing $40k. So if you needed an emergency $10k to stay afloat, then isn't it a moot point because even if you had access to the $, you could not pony up the matching funds necessary to get it?
HI. i play in a sometimes-Factor-funded band called Land of Talk. My paramount concern is that Factor has NOT and may not be approved for future funding.
and if i may be so bold: bands- like metric -who have busted ass for years here and abroad play a huge part (directly and/or indirectly) in the success of other hardworking canadian artists. Again, focusing on the bigger picture which so often escapes us, here is an excerpt from Margaret Atwood's open letter to Stephen Harper (Globe and Mail Sept.26th, 2008) which i found to be pretty enlightening and encouraging:
"At present, we are a very creative country. For decades, we've been punching above our weight on the world stage - in writing, in popular music and in many other fields. Canada was once a cultural void on the world map, now it's a force. In addition, the arts are a large segment of our economy: The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. And, according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector accounted for an “estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined).”
I believe it is fairly obvious how important FACTOR is for the arts in Canada. Let us please work on securing future funding and then we can work out how fairly those funds are distributed.
Now judging by how long it took me to write this comment i should get cracking on my open letter to Mr.Harper. I know FACTOR is imploring anyone who has ever received its funding to do the same.
cheers,
Elizabeth Powell
I think I'll let that one speak for itself. It's great to see people with passion involved.
Quote from MTL DBA guy:
"what about the person that just called this dude out as a thief? It's cool for him to hide behind a screen name?"
hey guy, this is Nick Diamonds, and I'm not terribly thrilled about being sullied like this in a public setting when you have no evidence to suggest I'm up in here as an anonymous poster. Furthermore, you have almost all of your facts seriously sideways and while I would love to set them straight here, I'm going to spare everyone else who could give a fuck less. I will invite you to email me: islandsareforever@gmail.com so i can set you straight. much obliged.
peas
i'm shocked at how much time greg has to spend on this...do your work dude! sell some records, develop some bands! stopit with the refresh button!!!!!!!!
6124 words in 45 minutes while waiting for a plane? That works out to 136wpm if you didn't stop for a second nor stop to collect your thoughts. I don't think so. Matt, if you can type 136wpm with 100% accuracy maybe you should be doing something else with your life - like being my secretary.
hiya "Gimme Sympathy" was a really crap video and if $25000 was needed to do a performance video where you change clothes and positions you need to find new directors.
Hey, I just wanted to write in to say that, in response to the recent uproar over the artistic grant system in Canada, I read both Greg Ipp and Matheiu Drouin's letters and I, in end, support Greg wholeheartedly. In spite of the verbosity and space that Matheiu's letter takes up his response essentially ammounts to 'oh well, its not a perfect world and we're (meaning Metric and his label) not THAT big.' The fact is, however, that these bands (which I do think Greg unfairly refers to as mediocre) recieve the lions share of the funding because the system bets on the winners, as it were, as opposed to those who bear artistic merit but wouldn't fare well under the benevolent hand of the free market.
Its not right and Matheiu Drouin certainly didn't win me over with the virulent condesencion that permeated his ostensible 'user manual for spoiled indie-label' rant. I live on the west coast, an already maligned and neglected region of music, and as far as I can tell the Canadian grant system is broken in a way that fundamentally favors not only east-coast bands but bands 'like' Metric, Arcade Fire, Broken Social Scene, Stars, ect. Reading Drouin's letter just made me ill insofar as it read precisely in the manner of what it is, the lament of a man hooked into a gravy-train and not wanting it to slow down.
Bravo Greg for speaking up for those that couldn't and can't, to push the gravy-train metaphor, get onboard,
Dock Currie
Victoria, BC
@Elizabeth Powell it's been rebooted:
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/20...
1/3 of approx $23M goes to Factor.
defensive much, Mathieu Drouin?
you took countless words to say what could be summed up concisely:
it's a great system, because we're milking it
defensive much, Mathieu Drouin?
you took countless words to say what could be summed up concisely:
it's a great system, because we're milking it