Jump to content

Using how much the music business sucks as justification for not being more successful


Anderton

Recommended Posts

  • Members

So as not to hijack the mice thread...

 

Or we could go back to discussing how much the music business sucks and whether we want to use that as justification for why none of us were more successful. That was good for half a dozen of or so threads, IIRC.

 

 

 

I do think that's an oversimplification, because what constitutes "successful" doesn't necessarily mean being a big star. I've been around long enough to remember when the music business had a "middle class." You could support yourself with music without having to be a star. There were strong local music scenes that supported their own, similarly to how communities support local sports teams. The music business simply mirrors society as a whole, which has witnessed a major transfer of wealth out of the middle class, thus shrinking it. The "music business middle class" has become much smaller as well.

 

Even when the music business was in its prime, it was very difficult to become rich and famous. However that was only a small sliver of what could be considered success, because it was possible to support yourself and in many cases, quite comfortably. I knew a musician in the 80s who played only local bars around Vancouver. He had a super-entertaining act, and he made over $120,000 a year in 1980s dollars. By my standards, he was successful - he was making a good living doing what he wanted, while entertaining people, constantly changing up his act to keep it fresh, and making audiences happy. I don't know how he's doing these days, but I suspect the same opportunities to play simply aren't there.

 

Did he change, or the music industry? Neither. The distribution of wealth changed, and that has impacted the music business as much as it has impacted every element of society. That's what really sucks; the music industry is just one of many innocent bystanders. There may still be some venues for him because he already established a career back when it was much easier, but not for someone coming up and trying to duplicate his success. If there's no place to play, there's no way to make money doing live performance..

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Another real-world example: when I dropped out of college and started doing music full-time, I started off making $50,000 a year in today's dollars being in the house band for a club and playing occasional out of town gigs. Granted, I worked my ass off for that, and IMHO we were pretty damn good and worth seeing, but can you imagine that being able to happen today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The phrase "successful" is a moving target when used in a discussion.

 

Maybe to a few, it means making a satisfying recording that people enjoy.

To some, it may mean making a living recording or playing music.

To others, it may mean touring as a musician for a living.

To yet others, it may mean making a living playing *your* music, the music you wish to do.

To others, it may mean being the headlining act and being a household name.

And hopefully to all, it means doing something you absolutely love to do.

 

As always, YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've finally reached a level where I've wanted to be at for a long time in my area. I'll be doing my first gig with this well established group next Saturday at a wedding where the charge to have the group is $2500. That's pretty good in an area where most bands are lucky if they can get $500 for a gig. What sets this group apart from the cookie cutter classic rock groups in this area is that they do modern dance music; songs by Pink, Ke$ha, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry etc. as well as a few modern country numbers by Miranda Lambert, Little Big Town, Carrie Underwood and others blended with older disco/dance hits often in medleys which keeps the dance floor full of young ladies. Unlike most local groups they use in ear monitors and pro sound guys for the best possible presentation.

 

It's been a lot of hard work, lord knows I knew how to play scant few on their list when I came on board and it was another whole realm trying to get the necessary keyboard and synth sounds for some of these songs but I've been working at it hard and the band appreciates and seems to admire the work I've put in so I feel like I'm finally attaining some "success" around here.

 

I don't want to stop there though, I'm hoping to push them in the direction of doing some sequencing which could open up whole new areas of showtime professionalism!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I do think that's an oversimplification, because what constitutes "successful" doesn't necessarily mean being a big star.

 

Over-simplification? Sure. But what I meant was "more successful" as each of us defines it for ourselves. We had a couple of threads where some were talking about being happy that they didn't become "more successful" because the music business sucks anyway, or that sort of success leads to ultimate unhappiness so they were happy to have been what others might see as a "failure".

 

But I agree 100%---we all define success and happiness on our own terms, and "failure" is judged accordingly as well. As I said back in those other threads---regarding my own personal story--I never had huge expectations of "making it" anyway because I knew from the outset what a long shot it was. That I felt, then and now, that I gave it my best shot is enough for me. I've never felt regret or disappointment. Only happiness of having so many great memories of living a life for a period of time that many people would envy. Doesn't hurt that I ended up in a pretty-OK place in my life too. Were I sitting here typing on a borrowed computer while living in a friends basement, I might have a different story to tell.

 

I also agree that it's ALWAYS been extremely hard to "make it" in this business. Only a very small percentage ever make real money or find anything approaching financial security. I haven't seen statistics, but I'm not entirely sure that it is actually any harder now than it has ever been. It's more apparent, perhaps, because we see so many more "struggling musician" types because of the internet and social media. 30 years ago, we each knew of the bands trying to "make it" in our own city. Now we are aware of many, many more than that from all across the country and around the world. In the meantime, there's still only 40 spots available on the Top 40 each week and worldwide fame still reaches the same number of people.

 

Yes, the business is much different and maybe the "middle class" is hollowed out a bit more. But that's always been an issue as well. I remember living in Las Vegas in the 80s and there was a big debate going on at the time about recorded music and sequencing and keyboardists taking the place of the live orchestras and bands playing in the showrooms there. The musicians union fought hard against it, but the musicians union is notoriously weak and you can't stop technology anyway. A lot of older players without any other real skills found themselves out of work.

 

And I've read stories about how the union fought against recorded music being played on the radio. Back in the 30s and 40s, the networks and big stations had their own orchestras and bands and only live music was performed on these stations. When that switched over, a lot of cats lost their jobs too.

 

Now technology is changing the landscape once again for how musicians make money with their art and craft. But I have great confidence that something else will rise to the top. New/different ways to make money using music will emerge as the predominant way to go about the business of music. Art will find a way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

I think there are too many people making music today, many who wouldn't if it weren't for all the tools available to them that don't have strings or mouthpieces or membranes. The concept of "talent" is different from the days when someone could really play the piano or put over the excitement or emotion of a song in front of an audience.

 

So with so many people in the game, one can be successful on a personal level, that is, you can be amused and amazed at your ability to make music. But to be a commercial success in the range between feeding the family and being a superstar - the number of successes compared to the number of players is pretty small.

 

Enjoying what you're doing with music and feeding the family with a day job is one form of success, probably the most common one. Considering yourself a failure because you can't get a well paying steady gig doing what you want with music is probabyl not a good way to judge success today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I think there are too many people making music today, many who wouldn't if it weren't for all the tools available to them that don't have strings or mouthpieces or membranes. The concept of "talent" is different from the days when someone could really play the piano or put over the excitement or emotion of a song in front of an audience.

 

But is that really any different than what people were saying back in the 50s and 60s when suddenly all you needed was 3 chords and an electric guitar and now years of musical training on an instrument and an ability to sight read and an understanding of musical theory were no longer necessary? I seem to remember my parents saying something like "any monkey could do that" when watching some rock performer on TV. Can you imagine Lou Reed trying to get a job as a musician auditioning for Count Basie?

 

But didn't it also feel back then as if now ANYBODY could become a successful musician with enough heart and dedication and a good song? Wasn't that seen as a GOOD thing?

 

Yes, the concept of "talent" is different. Music is art. It's fluid and its development is heavily influenced by technological advances.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

the number of successes compared to the number of players is pretty small.

 

 

Again, I'm suspicious if that is actually true. What Craig said above is true about how you can't really make $10K a year as a house band anymore. But that fact has also resulted in many fewer aspiring-musicians forming bands in order to get a gig as a house band.

 

Yes, there are many more guys sitting around making recordings of their songs with their home studios and posting them up on YouTube. But I'm thinking that's probably offset by fewer amateur bass players looking around for a band to gig with and thinking maybe they'll make a living doing that for awhile.

 

Yeah, the game has changed for sure. The paradigms are much different and are still changing rapidly. What else is new?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

But is that really any different than what people were saying back in the 50s and 60s when suddenly all you needed was 3 chords and an electric guitar and now years of musical training on an instrument and an ability to sight read and an understanding of musical theory were no longer necessary?

 

I don't think that anyone actually said that you didn't need to read music and know music theory. That was 'another' kind of musician. The thing is that between the 50s and 60s, people took those three chords, sometimes two, sometimes four, and made a new form of music which still took some skill and imagination to perform. Today people take a computer and a bunch of loops and from that made a new kind of music that you didn't need any real musical talent or skill to creat and 'perform' - all you needed was the imagination to put those pieces together in a creative and interesting way.

 

But there are more people today with a computer trying to make their form of music than there were people in the 50s with electric guitars making their kind of music . . . music which is still played today by people with real instruments.

 

I seem to remember my parents saying something like "any monkey could do that" when watching some rock performer on TV. Can you imagine Lou Reed trying to get a job as a musician auditioning for Count Basie?

 

No, but Lou Reed wasn't trying to get a gig in the Basie orchestra. I'll bet if he put his mind to it and studied what those musicians know, he could do it, but he had his own ideas. Nor can I imagine Chuck Berry getting steady a job with Basie, but I could imagine Ellington hiring him and writing a piece around what he does.

 

But didn't it also feel back then as if now ANYBODY could become a successful musician with enough heart and dedication and a good song?

 

I don't think so, and how many of those high school rockers achieved what we consider commercial success today? It was great to get gas money to play for a dance, and every town had one or two bands that did that nearly every weekend. But most of those bands didn't last past high school. Sure, every now and then we read an interview with a 'successful' band that starts out along the lines of "Jim and I played together back in high school, and when I decided to form a band when I dropped out of college, he was the first drummer I thought to call."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

What Craig said above is true about how you can't really make $10K a year as a house band anymore. But that fact has also resulted in many fewer aspiring-musicians forming bands in order to get a gig as a house band.

 

True, but there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that it's hardly worth the trouble financially, and just being a guitar player won't get you chicks any more. They're (the chicks) are smarter than that these days. But what you have is millions of individuals who sit at their computers and make music with the goal in mind of selling their songs without getting their butt off their computer chair, and dreaming of an independent, or even a major label picking them up or a major artist or even a TV program buying one of their songs . . all the while keeping their day job.

 

Yes, there are many more guys sitting around making recordings of their songs with their home studios and posting them up on YouTube. But I'm thinking that's probably offset by fewer amateur bass players looking around for a band to gig with and thinking maybe they'll make a living doing that for awhile.

 

Sure there are some of both today, but I don't see that one offsets the other. They each have about the same shot at 'success': [insert your favorite small number here].

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Another real-world example: when I dropped out of college and started doing music full-time' date=' I [i']started off [/i]making $50,000 a year in today's dollars being in the house band for a club and playing occasional out of town gigs. Granted, I worked my ass off for that, and IMHO we were pretty damn good and worth seeing, but can you imagine that being able to happen today?
It doesn't happen much today. I had a similar experience financially with yours Craig. I was making money, being creative, and having the time of my life musically. This was for a decade long stretch through the 80s. I don't see that opportunity so much today however. Bands like Chvrches, out of the Scotland, are having different sorts of opportunities. Getting a viral video from a SoundCloud posting is a huge slap on the back for a new band. They've had this experience and are worthy of expanding upon it. This sort of landscape is a very positive thing for a band that can cut the mustard. They can and continue to. Unfortunately the landscape today does not allow for players with a passion to learn the gig in the trenches. Still, I think the way it is today does allow for uber creative folks to flourish. The trenches, I think, are in the bedroom today. Creating greatness on your own terms and then sharing it with social media. YMMV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It is a new world, that's for sure.

 

There is a market for people creating and performing great music, but a lot more is required. Since the labels are basically gone, except for specialty genres, a musician has to do more than create great arrangements and perform them exceptionally well. They also have to promote, advertise, record, produce, engineer, mix, master, print/package/sell their own CDs, set up their own gigs, teach somebody to operate their PA and then teach them to listen while they do it, get somebody to collect the gate, get somebody to go around with the tip jar, get somebody to capture performances on video for them, and the list could go on and on.

 

IMHO, not many people are up to the task of doing 1/10th of this stuff on a level that could earn them a minimum wage living. Those who do have my respect and awe, but no envy....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
So as not to hijack the mice thread...

 

 

 

 

I do think that's an oversimplification, because what constitutes "successful" doesn't necessarily mean being a big star. I've been around long enough to remember when the music business had a "middle class." You could support yourself with music without having to be a star. There were strong local music scenes that supported their own, similarly to how communities support local sports teams. The music business simply mirrors society as a whole, which has witnessed a major transfer of wealth out of the middle class, thus shrinking it. The "music business middle class" has become much smaller as well.

 

Even when the music business was in its prime, it was very difficult to become rich and famous. However that was only a small sliver of what could be considered success, because it was possible to support yourself and in many cases, quite comfortably. I knew a musician in the 80s who played only local bars around Vancouver. He had a super-entertaining act, and he made over $120,000 a year in 1980s dollars. By my standards, he was successful - he was making a good living doing what he wanted, while entertaining people, constantly changing up his act to keep it fresh, and making audiences happy. I don't know how he's doing these days, but I suspect the same opportunities to play simply aren't there.

 

Did he change, or the music industry? Neither. The distribution of wealth changed, and that has impacted the music business as much as it has impacted every element of society. That's what really sucks; the music industry is just one of many innocent bystanders. There may still be some venues for him because he already established a career back when it was much easier, but not for someone coming up and trying to duplicate his success. If there's no place to play, there's no way to make money doing live performance..

 

 

 

I love how you articulate the concept of the "musical middle class" getting squeezed, but I don't see the correlation between that and a larger redistribution of wealth. There's just more DJ's and canned music in bars, because that's what the public seems to want. :idk:

 

 

As for Guido61's quote:

 

Or we could go back to discussing how much the music business sucks and whether we want to use that as justification for why none of us were more successful. That was good for half a dozen of or so threads, IIRC.

 

 

 

I think it's facile to blame the industry, and there's no shortage of wound-licking threads here. But if we're being candid, a lot of the "failures" are successful amateurs who just don't have the mettle to compete professionally.

 

I think everyone should do music, and there are a million ways to be a successful amateur, but if you don't have what it takes to be a pro, don't blame the business.

 

The music business is simply the musician's servant. When you need a manager, you get one. When you need a record label, you get one. No biggy :idk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

I love how you articulate the concept of the "musical middle class" getting squeezed, but I don't see the correlation between that and a larger redistribution of wealth. There's just more DJ's and canned music in bars, because that's what the public seems to want

 

I think that DJs and canned music aren't what the public wants, it's that they don't want to pay a cover charge for live entertainment because that's not what they go to bars for. Same goes for weddings except that it's not the public (wedding guests) wanting a DJ, it's whoever's paying for the wedding wanting to save a grand or so, knowing that the guests will dance to whatever music is playing and aren't there to see a performance.

 

I think everyone should do music, and there are a million ways to be a successful amateur, but if you don't have what it takes to be a pro, don't blame the business.

 

What is an amateur successful at? Being an amateur musician? Anyone can do that. Sometimes getting a manager and getting a label deal will make an artist successful, but there are no guarantees, It's more about the manager being successful at that point than the artist. Not very many artists can achieve commercial success and recognition on their own, with just their music. However, some artists have become successful with their music because they've been successful with management. Some can do both, but most would rather just do the music. If they really believe in themselves and find someone really good to take care of business, they can make it. But it's only the flukes, the small handful of viral videos or tweets or whatever that we hear about that get their brush with fame without pushing the right buttons or having someone to do it for them.

 

But that's really not all that different than it ever was, just that there are a lot more dreamers with a product than there used to be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I love how you articulate the concept of the "musical middle class" getting squeezed, but I don't see the correlation between that and a larger redistribution of wealth. There's just more DJ's and canned music in bars, because that's what the public seems to want. :idk:

 

Well, consider "downsizing" and offshoring of jobs to where there's cheap labor - we have corrolaries in your example of DJs and canned music. DJs take up less space and cost less money (unless you're Carl Cox or whatever), and canned music is like cheap labor. I'm not sure it's necessarily what the public wants, but it's what they're going to get. Just like they're going to get less service and cheaper (in all senses of the word) goods.

 

The one exception is DJs who really have the club thing down, are attractions, and people do want to see them. They get paid a little more but even for these DJs, there are fewer clubs and fewer opportunities.

 

There's a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy, too. You can make the argument that there aren't that many compelling bands, but if there's no place to play, what's the incentive? I guarantee I could put together a kickass band with a great set inside of two months. Maybe the public would love it and flip out, maybe they'd throw tomatoes but I'll never find out because I can't justify the time required to put it together unless it went mega-big...which we all know is highly unlikely (especially because I don't have blond hair and big breasts, LOL). There isn't that local infrastructure where we could play, and if people dug it, we'd at least break even.

 

I think it's facile to blame the industry, and there's no shortage of wound-licking threads here. But if we're being candid, a lot of the "failures" are successful amateurs who just don't have the mettle to compete professionally.

 

I agree, but it's not just a problem for the players...the industry downturn, and there is one, is a problem for the listeners. too. Sure, some people will blame the industry for a fundamental lack of talent, and also, the competition is stiffer than ever because all recorded music since the dawn of time is available 24/7. But the problem for listeners is that there are talented people who COULD draw a crowd, but there's no place to draw them to.

 

In the course of mastering hundreds of tracks from wannabes and pros alike, it's true that many recordings were average. But every now and then something would come along where I'd gladly drive 100 miles and pay $50 to see that act. There IS some really good music out there and while the musicians might not be whining about not making it, I'm whining about not being able to see them play anywhere.

 

I think everyone should do music, and there are a million ways to be a successful amateur, but if you don't have what it takes to be a pro, don't blame the business.

 

Of course, music is for enjoyment. Not every one who skis expects to go to the Olympics. All I'm saying is it used to be a lot easier to at least get a shor to see if you had it in you or not. Maybe you'd fail, or maybe you'd fly, but at least you had a chance to try. Also remember that quite a few bands were "successful amateurs," but could at least support themselves during the years they honed their craft and became professionals.

 

At this point I don't care about "making it big," I had what I could handle at a time that was conducive to being a musician. I'm doing fine, and I still love doing music - especially because there's no pressure and I can do anything I want on whatever schedule I want. But I do miss being able to see live music from "undiscovered" bands, who build up a following over time, get better and better, and eventually break out nationally. Maybe it's out there and I'm just not seeing it...but jeez, back in Cologne in the late 90s you could go to a dozen clubs, all with great DJs (I mean club DJs with real talent, not guys playing Debbie Boone at weddings), all within walking distance and all packed. I loved playing at those places, and I loved listening to the bands and DJs too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
The phrase "successful" is a moving target when used in a discussion.

 

Maybe to a few, it means making a satisfying recording that people enjoy.

To some, it may mean making a living recording or playing music.

To others, it may mean touring as a musician for a living.

To yet others, it may mean making a living playing *your* music, the music you wish to do.

To others, it may mean being the headlining act and being a household name.

And hopefully to all, it means doing something you absolutely love to do.

 

To me, it means success on the level of Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones, not Joe Blow playing steady gigs at the Holiday Inn, who also has a few hundred hits on their YouTube channel.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I don't think that anyone actually said that you didn't need to read music and know music theory. That was 'another' kind of musician. The thing is that between the 50s and 60s, people took those three chords, sometimes two, sometimes four, and made a new form of music which still took some skill and imagination to perform. Today people take a computer and a bunch of loops and from that made a new kind of music that you didn't need any real musical talent or skill to creat and 'perform' - all you needed was the imagination to put those pieces together in a creative and interesting way.

 

Those "other" kinds of musicians weren't viewed favorably by many of the older musicians of that era. In their view those guys couldn't play, couldn't sing, and didn't know how to write songs. They didn't have what they viewed as "musical talent". All they were doing was making noise and screaming instead of singing and it wasn't music at ALL compared to what "real" musicians of the previous generation did. All they managed to do was increase the number of people now considered to be "musicians" competing for the same view spots on the charts and radio rotations.

 

I'm having a hard time seeing how your criticism of today's computer-and-bunch-of-loops guys is any different.

 

 

 

 

No, but Lou Reed wasn't trying to get a gig in the Basie orchestra. I'll bet if he put his mind to it and studied what those musicians know, he could do it, but he had his own ideas. Nor can I imagine Chuck Berry getting steady a job with Basie, but I could imagine Ellington hiring him and writing a piece around what he does.

 

And today's computer-with-loops kid isn't trying to be The Eagles. Doesn't mean if he put his mind to it and studied what The Eagles know that he couldn't come up with some nice 4 chord country-rock tunes.

 

 

 

I don't think so, and how many of those high school rockers achieved what we consider commercial success today? It was great to get gas money to play for a dance, and every town had one or two bands that did that nearly every weekend. But most of those bands didn't last past high school. Sure, every now and then we read an interview with a 'successful' band that starts out along the lines of "Jim and I played together back in high school, and when I decided to form a band when I dropped out of college, he was the first drummer I thought to call."

 

 

And that's my entire point. It's NEVER been easy to make it. This whole thread is a bunch of older guys who never fully "made it" complaining that it's harder to make it today. Really? It was EASIER back then? I guess I was so busy struggling and not making it that I didn't notice.

 

Of all the years I did this, I know of exactly ONE guy who came out of same local music scene I came out of who got that record deal and did well enough to be considered "successful" on that level. And of all the cover-bands-working-full-time-while-working-on-their-originals bands that were playing the same circuit I was playing throughout the 80s and all trying to grab that brass ring, I know of exactly ONE band that was able to do that and do it to a degree to be considered "successful". (And for this level of "success" I'm talking put out a few albums, had hits on the radio and sold albums in the millions. Successful enough that they actually made real money, at least for the time being. In fact, both acts still tour under those band names. The kind of success of that most of us were shooting for, to some degree or another.)

 

A lot of things have changed in the business over the years. No doubt. It's always changing. But the odds of "making it"? I dunno. They were NEVER good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I think that DJs and canned music aren't what the public wants, it's that they don't want to pay a cover charge for live entertainment because that's not what they go to bars for. Same goes for weddings except that it's not the public (wedding guests) wanting a DJ, it's whoever's paying for the wedding wanting to save a grand or so, knowing that the guests will dance to whatever music is playing and aren't there to see a performance.

 

 

It's not that they don't want to pay a cover charge. The biggest hot spots with DJs charge covers. But the appeal of DJs is that they provide a more consistent product and experience. You don't walk out of a club too often because the DJ sucks. Rarely has a bad DJ ruined a wedding. DJs don't usually get fired after the first night because they didn't impress the clubowner. I do the wedding band thing now and I see this every day. Sure, pricing has something to do with it---a DJ is going to save the client a couple thousand dollars. But the other side of that is for a wedding that is going to cost $50K+, a couple grand extra for live music isn't that big a deal.

 

The mindset is---at least subconsciously--that a DJ is going to be more fun and play more stuff that people like. Invariably the people who hire a live band want a live band because they attended a wedding before that had one and that was what made them realize how much better a live band would be. But unless they've experienced a live band in that environment, they don't get it. They think a live band is going to be boring and play a bunch of crappy songs they can't dance to.

 

Not that it wouldn't have changed anyway, but a lot of it started happening back in the 90s when being in a rock band suddenly became much more about being "serious" about your music than having fun with it. The whole concept of what "live music" was began to change and it has had a last effect on the live music scenes. I think until bands themselves try to reclaim this market and return it to what it was in the 60s 70s and 80s---young bands playing new fresh young music for young people-- it will have no chance of coming back.

 

Which sorts of instruments they use or how well they play them or even if it's what other people might or might not consider to be "real music" is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

To me, it means success on the level of Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones, not Joe Blow playing steady gigs at the Holiday Inn, who also has a few hundred hits on their YouTube channel.

 

 

 

 

 

And by that definition, there's very few people that are successful.

 

But as I mentioned above, someone who is making a living, maybe making six figures, touring and playing music might consider herself/himself to be successful. That's your definition. It simply may not be someone else's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

Those "other" kinds of musicians weren't viewed favorably by many of the older musicians of that era. In their view those guys couldn't play, couldn't sing, and didn't know how to write songs. They didn't have what they viewed as "musical talent". All they were doing was making noise and screaming instead of singing and it wasn't music at ALL compared to what "real" musicians of the previous generation did.

 

Really? Do you have something to back that up? I don't think that Charlie Patton cared much for what anyone in the Atlanta Symphony was doing, but neither do I think he criticized them and considered them to be taking work away from him.

 

I'm having a hard time seeing how your criticism of today's computer-and-bunch-of-loops guys is any different.

 

That's OK, you can disagree. But I think you were just reading my example but not getting the point. They aren't scorning those who have the real chops, they're just working in forms of music that don't require those chops. And since there are a whole lot more people who can't play music organically than can, it stands to reason that there will be more people making music artificially than organically. Their pool is bigger, so there's room for more small fish.

 

And today's computer-with-loops kid isn't trying to be The Eagles. Doesn't mean if he put his mind to it and studied what The Eagles know that he couldn't come up with some nice 4 chord country-rock tunes.

 

But that's not what they do. They play their own kind of music. The problem, as I see it (and feel free to argue if you can back it up) is that that "own kind of music" doesn't have a very large audience of dedicated followers. Sure, there are zillions of downloads, but how many of those go to people who are fans of any particular artist, and not just peole who are entertained by music of that genre?

 

Hank Williams and The Eagles, and The Beatles had raving fans, and people who raved about the Beatles didn't necessarily rave about The Eagles.

 

And that's my entire point. It's NEVER been easy to make it.

 

I completely agree.

 

This whole thread is a bunch of older guys who never fully "made it" complaining that it's harder to make it today. Really? It was EASIER back then? I guess I was so busy struggling and not making it that I didn't notice.

 

I never aspired to be a successful musician, so don't count me among those old guys who never made it (though you can count me among the old guys). It was never easy. But because making music is more accessible to more people today than ever has the effect of making it more difficult than ever for a few to stand out from the crowd. That may or may not be part of your definition of "success." It's part of mine.

 

Of all the years I did this, I know of exactly ONE guy who came out of same local music scene I came out of who got that record deal and did well enough to be considered "successful" on that level. And of all the cover-bands-working-full-time-while-working-on-their-originals bands that were playing the same circuit I was playing throughout the 80s and all trying to grab that brass ring, I know of exactly ONE band that was able to do that and do it to a degree to be considered "successful".

 

I've been dabbling in old time country, bluegrass, and traditional folk music for more than 50 years. I know lots of people I used to hang out and play music with back in the 60s and 70s who are considered superstars in their field today. Ever hear of Emmy Lou Harris or Mary Chapin Carpenter (I think I made her first studio recording)? The guys in the Seldom Scene used to come to parties at my house. I taught at the same music store as a couple of the Country Gentlemen (John Duffy of the Gentlemen was the string instrument repairman at that shop).

 

All of those folks started out playing bars and are now at the top of their field. Was it easy? No. All but a couple of them had day jobs until they were really in demand as musicians. And having a day job made it difficult to tour, which made it difficult to be more than a local success. But they made it. Sorry you didn't.

 

A lot of things have changed in the business over the years. No doubt. It's always changing. But the odds of "making it"? I dunno. They were NEVER good.

 

Agreed. That's why such a small percentage of the world's population is a big music star. But there are many who play music, make a little money, and are content at that level. That's a form of success, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

It's not that they don't want to pay a cover charge. The biggest hot spots with DJs charge covers. But the appeal of DJs is that they provide a more consistent product and experience. You don't walk out of a club too often because the DJ sucks. Rarely has a bad DJ ruined a wedding. DJs don't usually get fired after the first night because they didn't impress the clubowner.

 

There are DJs and there are DJs. Craig made the point that a good club DJ doesn't just play records, he or she paces the show just like a band would, or should, do, often manipulates the music by changing tempo, changing pitch so one song will segue nicely into the next, add some effects that aren't on the original records, perhaps flying in sections from other records. I'd watch somebody like that for a half an hour or so.

 

There are some world famous DJs but they didn't get famous just by spinning records in a club, they made records of their own mixes and sold them to other DJs, or they got on a TV show, or the booked a world tour. They work just as hard as the players in a rock band. But most DJs that have a following at all have a local following and tend to play the same clubs, at least that's the way it is around here. People go to the club because they like the DJ, and if it's a dance club, as most where the money-making DJs work are, they like to dance to the music that the DJ plays. I think that's a certain measure of success. But can he afford to just work clubs? Or does he need to design web sites or do brain surgery durning the days to keep the family fed?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...