Members DeuceyBaby Posted November 18, 2009 Members Share Posted November 18, 2009 ive been trolling this board for a while and the general atmosphere is really depressing on the outlook of the recorded audio industry. while piracy hurts us, as musicians we have to always see the good in everything, right? lets assume your not a big name or a major label artist for a second. first off, maybe I am just biased being from new york city, but by the size of the lines at the CD stands after the basement club shows out here, most underground bands record sales are not really that hurt by filesharing. even if they do actually decide to distribute digitally, most of their sales are made physically, after concerts, by people (like tourists) who have just recently heard them playing and liked the music. they also usually include extras with the CD like posters and autographs that u can only get at the events that make it more likely for people to buy from them, and not search the internet for hours looking for links to something that might not exist for a lesser popular artist. the actual type of piracy that might hurt them are people who rip copies of CD's for friends. and that is the type of piracy that people refer to when they say making a new fan is worth the loss of a sale. most artists hurt by digital piracy are going to make a decent living either way. now on a positive note, as the remaining majors go down, (and possibly merge) and I say good riddance to them, I see a smattering of regional indie labels forming, managing no more than a dozen acts at a time, focusing within a single genre, and making it possible for artists to scoff at the modern A&R's cookie cutter pop agenda, and chase their own destiny, much like jay-z did when he formed roc-a-fella records (although he sold his rights several years later) and with a small, loyal following, keep piracy to a minimum im one of those people who believe there's good news in everything if you just look for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted November 19, 2009 Members Share Posted November 19, 2009 im one of those people who believe there's good news in everything if you just look for it I agree with you man and it's good to have a positive attitude. Sometimes I feel very bitter and cynical when I read some of the posts by older forumites within this forum. I'm only 23 and the industry is "crashing down." I'm hearing from all these different sources that it's useless to pursue any kind of a career in music. But what else am I supposed to do? I've been playing music since I was 10 years old. I'm not just some guy who felt he could capitalize on the "easy money" within the industry, I've done this half my life and now the very people within the industry are telling me and thousands of other young people that we're wasting our time and the party is over. That in addition to the depressing recession news that we hear on a daily basis has made lots of young musicians and young artists in general very bitter and we're pissed. I write, play and perform music because it's what I do. I love conversing about music and am awestruck when I see truly great performers in their element. Should I give up because someone else tells me its a useless venture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeuceyBaby Posted November 19, 2009 Author Members Share Posted November 19, 2009 yeah dude, its not about the money. but my point is, even if it was about money (which is what intellectual property is all about) there is more than enough potential to make a decent living off music. the same amount as a lawyer? doctor? CEO? probably not. but that wasn't ever supposed to be the goal for a musician. while they do stressful work all day and have to live for the 3 day weekend, the american dream for the artist was to be able to play music all we wanted to, touching lives across the country/globe, and not have to struggle to eat after the end of the gig while doing it. even for a major artist, who is losing lots of money to piracy, he still is able to do that even if he can only afford a single luxury car, and for the underground or local artist like most of us are, digital technology has helped us more than it has hurt us. the ceiling of potential is lowered, but the ground has also been raised for new artists to get started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IKH Posted November 19, 2009 Members Share Posted November 19, 2009 I'm not sure I understand where you find things are better for musicians. We have been devaluated to the point where it is difficult to find local gigs that pay more than I was making 30 years ago. Seems that in my long hiatus from the scene, the we'll play for free attitude has led us to become stereotyped as hobbyists.There are more clubs raking huge profits and paying minimum returns to the artists than i have ever seen.Packing a 300 seat venue consistently will net an average $600 while the 200 seat clubs offer a max $250.The top clubs paying any real money are controlled by agents who sit easy on existing talent with no interest in accepting new bands.Of course I can only attest to the situation in my local area, but if you could elaborate on all of the exciting new opportunity available, I could really use the inspiration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted November 19, 2009 Members Share Posted November 19, 2009 as musicians we have to always see the good in everything, right? Not necessarily. Part of being an artist is to reflect truth as you see it. I see the music business, much like IKH said, as devaluing horribly over the past 39 years. Bands are making what they did in 1980, roughly 1/4 of what they did then in buying power. In 1980 you could get a bottle of beer in a bar for a buck. You could get a pair of Levi's for 9 bucks, rent a decent house for $250 a month, and buy a 40 minute vinyl record album for 8 dollars and gallon of gas for 60 cents. In 1977 I was 22 years old playing 6 nights a week, grossing $400 a week. My friends framing houses were making $200/week. In today's dollars, that 400/week would be about 1600 dollars. I fail to see how things are better for the working musician. All the happy talk and rose colored glasses in the world won't change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members slight-return Posted November 19, 2009 Members Share Posted November 19, 2009 even if it was about money (which is what intellectual property is all about) Well, US copyright law tends to be skewed that way more than much of the rest of the world (some countries make fun of us for that) But even in USA, it's not the sole driver Worldwide Church of God v Philly Church of God Soderbergh v Cleanflicks come immediately to mind as litigation that were based on other-than-financial motivation some forms of licensing (which is empowered by copyright) such as the GNU GPL are actually designed, not for $, but keep the source open while they do stressful work all day and have to live for the 3 day weekend more like 1 day weekend - then again, some attys play out too Hell, in seattle there's even "lawyerpalooza" charity battle of the lawyer bands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted November 19, 2009 Members Share Posted November 19, 2009 I write, play and perform music because it's what I do. I love conversing about music and am awestruck when I see truly great performers in their element. Should I give up because someone else tells me its a useless venture? No. But you should also look at things realistically. Look at small businesses. I forget the stat but something like 80% of all small businesses fail in the first three years. They usually fail because their business plan is not solid, which is usually the result of letting emotion get in the way of logic and facts. I don't care how passionate you are about sushi, it ain't gonna fly in Backwater, Kentucky, unless you're selling it as bait. If you want to write, play, and perform music for a living, you need a plan. Wanting to do it and loving it aren't enough - if we got paid for what we wanted to do and loved doing, sales of vaseline and stock in Internet porn sites... no, let's not go there. If you don't have a plan, then yes, you should give up, because you have no chance. Even with a good plan your odds are terrible, but part of your plan has to be "what happens if I can't make a living at music?" Some people call this a "fall back plan" and say that you can't do that and succeed. There have been countless threads about that. Some argue that you have to invest everything you possibly have and you can't have a backup plan, but that's utter bullsh*t. A decent job/career allows you a budget to work with. And I am the broken record who has said this at least 75 times here, but you CAN make a living in the music business - it is totally possible. It's always been possible and still is. But you have to be willing to do a lot of music related stuff - you have to choose from the list - sell instruments, repair instruments, live sound, give lessons, record bands, perform in various cover bands, and so on. If you're not willing to do those things, then what you're really saying is you want to make a living in the music biz doing only the "gravy" work - playing original music to thousands of screaming fans. Very, very few people ever get to do that. You can write and perform your own music your whole life - NO ONE can stop you from doing that. I have a wife, two kids, dog, career, two story house with cute little dormers, and I just released my third CD. I was on the local TV station, I did two radio shows, did a CD release party, and have some gigs lined up. No one can stop me from doing this stuff. But I'm realistic enough to know not to quit my day job. The world does not care so much about my music. But I'm the best guy in my district at working with servers and for some reason the world values that more, so that's what pays my bills. I'm diatribing again. Sorry. Too many young people think that music should be about becoming a rock star. It was never about that. Music should be about having fun. It's art. It's about being creative. It's about making something that really allows you to express yourself. If you're not having fun, quit. If you think the only way you can be happy is if you play to thousands of adoring fans... then you are setting yourself up to be unhappy. No one can stop you from making music. But reality can stop you from selling 500,000 CD's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Poker99 Posted November 19, 2009 Members Share Posted November 19, 2009 I'm not sure I understand where you find things are better for musicians. We have been devaluated to the point where it is difficult to find local gigs that pay more than I was making 30 years ago. Seems that in my long hiatus from the scene, the we'll play for free attitude has led us to become stereotyped as hobbyists.There are more clubs raking huge profits and paying minimum returns to the artists than i have ever seen.Packing a 300 seat venue consistently will net an average $600 while the 200 seat clubs offer a max $250.The top clubs paying any real money are controlled by agents who sit easy on existing talent with no interest in accepting new bands.Of course I can only attest to the situation in my local area, but if you could elaborate on all of the exciting new opportunity available, I could really use the inspiration. I don't think filesharing has much to do with this. Its just offer and demand. Too many bands + too many options for people (DVDs, home theaters, videogames) = less value for live music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted November 19, 2009 Members Share Posted November 19, 2009 I don't think filesharing has much to do with this.\It may not be a direct cause, but it is a contributing factor to the overall current notion that music should be cheap or free. It is a not a very big stretch from thinking that music on the internet should be free to thinking live music should be, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted November 19, 2009 Members Share Posted November 19, 2009 I fail to see how things are better for the working musician. All the happy talk and rose colored glasses in the world won't change that. The Eternal Pessimist speaks!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted November 19, 2009 Members Share Posted November 19, 2009 The Eternal Pessimist speaks!! I only wish I could be around to listen to you after you've done this for 39 years. Unfortunately, I'll likely be long dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted November 19, 2009 Members Share Posted November 19, 2009 No.But you should also look at things realistically. Look at small businesses. I forget the stat but something like 80% of all small businesses fail in the first three years. They usually fail because their business plan is not solid, which is usually the result of letting emotion get in the way of logic and facts. I don't care how passionate you are about sushi, it ain't gonna fly in Backwater, Kentucky, unless you're selling it as bait.If you want to write, play, and perform music for a living, you need a plan. Wanting to do it and loving it aren't enough - if we got paid for what we wanted to do and loved doing, sales of vaseline and stock in Internet porn sites... no, let's not go there.If you don't have a plan, then yes, you should give up, because you have no chance. Even with a good plan your odds are terrible, but part of your plan has to be "what happens if I can't make a living at music?" Some people call this a "fall back plan" and say that you can't do that and succeed. There have been countless threads about that. Some argue that you have to invest everything you possibly have and you can't have a backup plan, but that's utter bullsh*t. A decent job/career allows you a budget to work with. And I am the broken record who has said this at least 75 times here, but you CAN make a living in the music business - it is totally possible. It's always been possible and still is. But you have to be willing to do a lot of music related stuff - you have to choose from the list - sell instruments, repair instruments, live sound, give lessons, record bands, perform in various cover bands, and so on. If you're not willing to do those things, then what you're really saying is you want to make a living in the music biz doing only the "gravy" work - playing original music to thousands of screaming fans. Very, very few people ever get to do that. You can write and perform your own music your whole life - NO ONE can stop you from doing that. I have a wife, two kids, dog, career, two story house with cute little dormers, and I just released my third CD. I was on the local TV station, I did two radio shows, did a CD release party, and have some gigs lined up. No one can stop me from doing this stuff. But I'm realistic enough to know not to quit my day job. The world does not care so much about my music. But I'm the best guy in my district at working with servers and for some reason the world values that more, so that's what pays my bills.I'm diatribing again. Sorry. Too many young people think that music should be about becoming a rock star. It was never about that. Music should be about having fun. It's art. It's about being creative. It's about making something that really allows you to express yourself. If you're not having fun, quit. If you think the only way you can be happy is if you play to thousands of adoring fans... then you are setting yourself up to be unhappy. No one can stop you from making music. But reality can stop you from selling 500,000 CD's. I agree with a lot of your points and I've learned a lot of good things from the older guys like you in the forum. But as far as having a plan, I haven't drafted a complete outline and strategy on how to "conquer" the music biz like some of my friends have. I just play it by ear. I'm working on starting a new group now and I made it a goal to seriously incorporate a few covers into the set. In addition to that, I want to do something a bit more mature sounding and flexible in terms of appealing to an older fanbase. I'm leaning towards a funk/groove oriented project, but I know that majority of the sound will lie in what kind of musicians I can get. I'd love to throw in more of a blues influence as well because I feel the blues is everlasting music and can be appreciated by anyone...but I digress. Music is not my fulltime job. I've got a desk job and I really want to pursue a career with the company I'm at. However, I would totally give it all up if the right opportunity was thrown at ie being Jay-Z's touring guitarist lol. Nonetheless, I will continue to work this job and possibly get my MBA in the future. All the while I'll be doing music and if I luck up and get end up in a situation where I'm playing to 300-400 people every night then I will pursue music even more aggressively and rely on that as a primary income. Overall, I'm in it for the respect. I went through the phase of loving Eddie Van Halen, Slash and all the other "guitar/rock gods" when I was younger. But that was just a phase and I moved out of that quick. I have much more respect for the Methenys and Mclaughlins of the world. I'm more content to play in Derek Trucks band as a sideman than be Eddie Van Halen in front of 100,000 people. I never thought that way so I suppose I feel disheartened at times when people throw their definition of success and stardom at me and it doesnt quite align with mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members katopp Posted November 19, 2009 Members Share Posted November 19, 2009 Music won't be goin' down.WHAT will be going down is the Music Industry and the likes of Simon Cowell and his one-hit-woder drones. Earnings and incomes will shift more from CD sales to online sales but more and more to the classical venues - gigging and merchandise - and to me, this is a good thing."Musicians" won't be able to have one hit and live from that income from then on, they have to be productive, go out, face the fans and perform.I do see a completely free online-world soon. Get the song from Utup, Itun or Napstar for free, but then visit the concert and buy the tee. Maybe - even maybe - the "old style" route to fame and fortune will vbe reopened, no more X-Factors, but genuine Artists, would that be soooo bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted November 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted November 19, 2009 The Eternal Pessimist speaks!! he didn't get the custom user title 'perennial malcontent' for nothing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted November 20, 2009 Members Share Posted November 20, 2009 "Musicians" won't be able to have one hit and live from that income from then on, they have to be productive, go out, face the fans and perform. Some of the best songs ever written are written by non-performing songwriters. I guess they're just hosed, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeuceyBaby Posted November 20, 2009 Author Members Share Posted November 20, 2009 I'm not sure I understand where you find things are better for musicians. We have been devaluated to the point where it is difficult to find local gigs that pay more than I was making 30 years ago. Seems that in my long hiatus from the scene, the we'll play for free attitude has led us to become stereotyped as hobbyists.There are more clubs raking huge profits and paying minimum returns to the artists than i have ever seen.Packing a 300 seat venue consistently will net an average $600 while the 200 seat clubs offer a max $250.The top clubs paying any real money are controlled by agents who sit easy on existing talent with no interest in accepting new bands.Of course I can only attest to the situation in my local area, but if you could elaborate on all of the exciting new opportunity available, I could really use the inspiration. The point is that, as far as recorded music goes (and not live gigs) digital has helped us WAYYY more than it has hurt us. the thought of splicing tape makes my brain hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeuceyBaby Posted November 20, 2009 Author Members Share Posted November 20, 2009 \It may not be a direct cause, but it is a contributing factor to the overall current notion that music should be cheap or free. It is a not a very big stretch from thinking that music on the internet should be free to thinking live music should be, too. may I ask, why you think the film industry hasn't suffered as much as we do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members slight-return Posted November 20, 2009 Members Share Posted November 20, 2009 may I ask, why you think the film industry hasn't suffered as much as we do? To be honest, I'm not sure that they have (suffered less) Miramax is down to like 20 guys, this month Paramount sent a formal letter to the FCC this month outlining their concerns, pipe are getting big enough where video is convenient, timeshifting as fair use (sony v universal) is horribly misunderstood by the general public (so sometimes piracy isn't understood by the general public AS piracy) I think there may trouble recognizing the impacts as well (esp as musicians, there's the blue Honda syndrom of the "we"). Film can still have a pretty high barrier to entry, I suspect those who self-describe as "we filmmakers" could be smaller than those who self-describe as "we musicians"....a lot of really small films just plain never even get made,I think generally people see the upper echelons of film, maybe even moreso that the rarefied echelons of pop music and we focus on the marquee talent's compensation, so there may be less of a public perception of "the artist is {censored}ed by the man"which makes the piracy debate less sexy and harder for folks to be angry at "the man" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Silent Heart Posted November 20, 2009 Members Share Posted November 20, 2009 Well, US copyright law tends to be skewed that way more than much of the rest of the world (some countries make fun of us for that) So exactly which countries allow citizens to protect their intellectual property for reasons other than money? :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members slight-return Posted November 20, 2009 Members Share Posted November 20, 2009 So exactly which countries allow citizens to protect their intellectual property for reasons other than money? :poke: :poke: ?? The moral rights countries tend to be more oriented toward that -- like France (they are a big driver), Germany and to some extent Mexico are examples (and in those countries the author can have rights that extend beyond propriety - ie even if they sell the proprietary rights, their moral rights can remain intact IIRC Mexicos moral rights are perpetual ). moral rights recognition was one of the reasons US was a signatory to Berne, but we were so late to ratify it through our legal system . USA tends to be odd-man-out when it comes to IP laws, I mean we are the only PCT first-to-invent country (it's possible there's a non-PCT, but I couldn't name it) but even the US has some of this (relief doesn't just have to be monetary, there is also injunctive relief - most of the filesharing rulings include destroy and enjoining orders as well as monetary damages), cleanflicks can not do the editing anymore (now, all they do is act as sort of a screener - they no longer buy and rent out the movies the used to under the editing model). The GNU GPL requires derivative code to be open source. The CC license of "Escape Pod" - allows for non-commercial redistribution, but no dervitaive works, no commerical distribution and requires attribution., "The Wind Done Gone" case sought injunction pre-publication (ie there weren't monetary damages- it hadn't been published) I know it's been brought up before on HC that -- a few years ago,Neil Diamond wasn't going to clear "(girl) youll be a woman soon" for Pulp Fiction on grounds of taste (he was later convinced otherwise) hold on, the search may be working (WOW, new HC search, looks like a more than just a UI update) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5051391 abt 20 min in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted November 20, 2009 Members Share Posted November 20, 2009 Film can still have a pretty high barrier to entry, I suspect those who self-describe as "we filmmakers" could be smaller than those who self-describe as "we musicians"....a lot of really small films just plain never even get made,I think generally people see the upper echelons of film, maybe even moreso that the rarefied echelons of pop music and we focus on the marquee talent's compensation, so there may be less of a public perception of "the artist is {censored}ed by the man"which makes the piracy debate less sexy and harder for folks to be angry at "the man" (sigh) oh gosh, I understand the first part of your statement in bold, but then you get into your tech talk again and I'm lost lol. Film has definitely taken a hit. Aspiring filmmakers HAVE to go to the bigger studios for funding because the budget for a film is so much larger than the budget for recording an album. I suppose aspiring producers and directors have the hardest time in Hollywood right now. It's always been about what connections you have anyway though. And there are so many politics surrounding big festivals like Cannes, Sundance, and Tribeca. I would imagine that if you are trying to break into film and become a big producer, your only hope is to intern at the studios and start out bringing coffee and donuts to the cast and crew. That way you can get some face time with people so when you're begging for their money later on, they recognize you to some extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members slight-return Posted November 20, 2009 Members Share Posted November 20, 2009 (sigh) oh gosh, I understand the first part of your statement in bold, but then you get into your tech talk again and I'm lost lol. (sigh) you understand "barrier to entry" and "self-identify" yet "upper eschelons" and "{censored}ed by the man" are tech talk to ya lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted November 20, 2009 Members Share Posted November 20, 2009 (sigh) you understand "barrier to entry" and "self-identify" yet "upper eschelons" and "{censored}ed by the man" are tech talk to ya lol Haha, I understand what you're getting at. You were saying that the upper echelons or levels of entertainment and pop culture are what usually reaches the masses and the plight of the independent artist, specifically the indie filmmaker, is rarely discussed or put into the limelight. But the {censored}ed by the man comment threw me off, do people in the film world feel {censored}ed by the man? Maybe in the porn industry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members slight-return Posted November 20, 2009 Members Share Posted November 20, 2009 But the {censored}ed by the man comment threw me off, do people in the film world feel {censored}ed by the man? Maybe in the porn industry so there may be less of a public perception of "the artist is {censored}ed by the man" with music piracy we often hear "well, none of the money is going to the artist", etc (it was even brought up in the vid you just posted - thanks for the heads up on theat BTW) so there's kind of that Robin Hood riff. I don't know if film has that as strongly (anecdotally, I don't think it does -- but I'm open to other interpretations) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted November 20, 2009 Members Share Posted November 20, 2009 may I ask, why you think the film industry hasn't suffered as much as we do? Well, first of all, I'm not sure I buy your premise that it hasn't. But film is different in several ways: Film files are much, much larger than audio files. It is unlikely that someone is going to have 2000 movies on their hard drive. Film is something one watches once or twice; music is something one listens to many times, making the demand different. Music is easier to perform, record and distribute than is making a film. Anyone can make a half decent CD in a matter of days; not anyone can make a half decent film at all, let alone in days. In this way, films still hold a higher value in the minds of the public than does music. When anyone can do something, the value of it plummets. That's why ditch diggers earn less than neurosurgeons. Still, piracy is decimating the film industry too. It is harder and harder for films to make a profit. They pretty much have to make it in the opening weekend or it's almost too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.