Laurie Berkner: How To Succeed Without Really Trying?
Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 10:28AM I will stop talking so much about Laurie Berkner soon, but The Lovely Mrs. Davis' post on Laurie and the reasons for her success couldn't go unresponded.
Typically Amy and I are pretty sympatico on our musical opinions, but we've never quite seen eye-to-eye on Berkner. (Though we've never actually "talked" about Laurie in any sense.) But I think the thing that tweaked me about Amy's post is twofold:
1. Laurie's not talented
2. Laurie's not "indie" (and that somehow is bad)
Amy's view is that there are "numerous other artists whose talent for writing and performing kids' music far surpass Laurie's." Taste is, of course, subjective, but I can't think of many artists for preschoolers who are better than Laurie -- she writes good melodies, lyrics, and has one heck of a voice (if you think she can't sing a "regular" song, check out her duet on "Happy Trails" with Buck Howdy on his Giddyup! album). In her videos (don't know about her concerts), she has an engaging personality. (OK, her albums are a bit underproduced, I'll grant you that.)
Her focus is a bit narrower than other artists who might try to hit the elementary school crowd, and I wouldn't play her albums for myself like I might with some other kids' music artists, but Laurie is very, very good at what she does and I'm not sure who'd rank above Laurie for the preschool set. Raffi, perhaps.
As for the "indie" argument, I've always found that argument rather tired. "Indie" has always meant more than the source of the music -- it's meant the approach. But, taking the argument at face value, is it true?
First off, Razor and Tie would qualify as an "indie" label for most people ("New York-based Razor & Tie is one of the fastest growing independent entertainment companies in the United States." -- from Razor and Tie's website). If it's somehow not an independent label, that means such artists as Elizabeth Mitchell (Smithsonian Folkways), the Terrible Twos (Vagrant/Paquito), Gustafer Yellowgold (Little Monster), or Peter Himmelman (Rounder) don't count as "indie," either. "Doing their own marketing" isn't a good way of describing "indie," either, as artists such as Justin Roberts, Dan Zanes, and Brady Rymer all have talented publicity people working for them.
Even if you disagree with my definitions and think Razor and Tie is not "indie", the simple fact is that Berkner is recording her albums on her own dime -- she's just using Razor and Tie for the "production and distribution" of her Two Tomatoes albums. She's like 99% of kids' artists out there -- just with a far, far better distribution arrangement, and one that I guarantee most would take. It's sort of like the Wiggles discussion...
Amy does bring up a good point regarding marketing to kids, and I have no disagreement there.
So I still think Amy's fabulous and lovely. But in this case, I'm gonna have to disagree. Thoughts?
Reader Comments (5)
You know, Berkner's songs are catchy and they're for kids. That doesn't seem to have a lot of clout these days. They are straight up kids songs, from what I've heard. Simple. Simple is hard. It takes a lot of work. They're not my favorite, but heck, my kids like 'em.
I've heard more than one person dis' her voice. I'm a singer. She can sing. Preference is one thing, but she's got chops.
on another note...When an artist gets lucky enough or works hard enough or gets lucky enough to get someone else to work hard enough to get some distribution.... does the artist still have any say about how that all works? I'm aksing whether she would have had any control over an ad like that? I found it pretty GINSU-ish and it wouldn't have sold me anything. I suppose you always have the option not to work with a company. But how practical is that?
We all want these people to be so pure and altruistic because they're singing to our kids, but they also have to buy houses and food and health insurance and raise families and I don't know if "indie" really cuts it.
i played a show with laurie in 2003 when i was just starting to play shows. she had hundreds and hundreds of devoted, enthusiasic fans. i was blown away. i had never heard of her, but clearly she was out there, working hard, spreading the word about her music. and i imagine this was long before any razor and tie affiliaton. in my mind, razor and tie is lucky to be working with an artist so creative and productive. i find her talent and her genuine connection with children to be undeniable.i do wish that razor and tie would not market to children. perhaps this discussion will inspire the powers that be to reconsider their marketing practices. perhaps not. it's worth a try.
In a similar vein, they feel that "indie" kids music is somehow cleaner, smarter, and "better for kids."
I would disagree. There is nothing wrong with kids music that has no subtext.
Sure, it's fun when a "kids artist" covers a David Bowie or Monkees song - but kids can have their favorites that appeal only to them. That's the point of being a kid.
I may roll my eyes a little when my son asks to put Raffi in the car CD player, but it will stay in the rotation if he wants - that's his choice.
I once handed out awards at an "Indie" music event (NAIRD, and I can't remember what the acronym stood for).In the list of nominees for kids' music, there were a couple of artists on big labels, being distributed independently. I remember being snarky about it at the time ("Disney---yeah, real independent" or some other remark).I guess my point is that this is an industry where even a good deal means you're still selling cd's from the trunk of your car.
I'm not a fan of Laurie Berkner's. So far, I haven't heard anything that feels right for "Kids Corner." But I've heard enough (like the Buck Howdy song) to be open to adding her in the future.I have had NO hard sell from Razor & Tie about her. And, since WXPN is a pretty indie-friendly station overall, I say that's to R&T's credit.Marketing can only go so far. If the artist doesn't deliver, the marketing won't matter in the long run.