That Tiresome "Youth" Demographic
So, there's a "progressive" political action group called Music for America, and I get their newsletter and had gotten some good feedback on their forum about a song on my first album called Mountains to Flatten, Valleys to Fill. I got a newsletter from them the other day about their board being changed. Here's what their homepage said:
MFA is doing some very serious restructuring after our very serious victory in the '06 elections. We're happy to say that our organization is now 100% young-people-run.So I wrote to them and asked why the "under 30" limiter. Were they going to take it all the way and ensure their board was all of a certain height, weight, skin hue and net worth? They wrote back and said their niche was "young people" and I shouldn't have a problem with that; it also didn't exclude people over-30 from supporting them. I wrote back that I thought their mission in the past had been to reach disaffected voters through music, without an explicit call for youth or "under 30." They didn't write back again.We're very serious. Meet our new board of directors, all under 30: Molly Neitzel, Dan Droller and hot-pants-selling superstar Dan Lipski. Please be patient with us as we wrangle them doggies, get the check book balenced [sic] and bang our heads against the legal.
I asked my youngest brother, who is under 30, if he thought this was a wise marketing move. Was I just being sensitive because I'd suddenly been booted from this new "under-30" club? If it were designated "under 40" would I have a different attitude? He felt it was a stupid decision and a pointless target market. "Once I went for a job interview," he said, "and the guy who interviewed me and everyone I saw at the company was just out of college. I thought, where are the adults here? I don't want to work with a bunch of kids. Where's the experience?"
Ultimately, it's their choice to target their market any way they like. At Grace Cathedral, where I'm a soloist for the Sunday night 6 pm service, they always announce the "20s and 30s" group, and it has always made me a bit uncomfortable. I know why they need it--people in their 20s and 30s don't go to church that much, as a rule. But I feel bad for the folks who aren't in the demographic.
In music, there's often concern that one's work must appeal to the "right" kind of people. These may be punks, or "tweens," or intellectuals, or ballroom dancers, or jazz critics, or young urban professionals. This happens at every level of the business, from total obscurity to megastar. Why do we trip on these labels?
I'm not very good at the "see and be seen" aspect of marketing oneself (though I did go out recently to a great artist's gig at my brother's urging and felt it was both inspiring and a good networking venture). And while I'm not a social butterfly, one result of my 15 years as a journalist is that I can pretty much talk to anyone. Sometimes I almost feel more comfortable with people I don't know than those I do. I've noticed when I go to music camps and conferences that people tend to form and cling to cliques--even in the supportive environment of jazz lovers or software developers. I'd rather flit around doing my own thing, whether that means jamming with a 16-year-old heavy metal guitarist in the wee hours, listening to a wizened drummer's tales from the road or learning how robots can mimic human expression.
These days, media saturation means we hear the labels all the time. It's like high school, all over again: Who's wearing what. Who's going with whom. Who's got the most money. Who's got the nicest car. I'm tired of the trite demographics. Do you have a brain, hands, eyes and/or ears? Are you a living creature, bipedal or not? Then I like you, just the way you are.


