ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR RECORDED MUSIC

[richardmac]

In that sense, my advice would be that anyone who wishes to make it a legitimate career out of music, should just run, run, run from Troy and find greener pastures (another hobby/ career). I think that the ultimate downfall of the music biz right now, is that anyone who's hoping for anything more than just getting the music out there, is in for a very rude surprise. The clubs here, for most lesser known bands, are a morgue. (snip) People will pay if they want, but music has become a part of the social fabric that's unnecessarily become dispensable. When I look at what i'm doing from a third person perspective, it's just entertainment in the end--though it has emotional salvation for listeners, it's not like it's curing cancer or AIDS or whatever.

 

 

I think many of us suffer from middle school syndrome. Ask an 8th grader on the football team what he wants to do when he grows up, and he's going to say "I want to play in the NFL." Or ask the kid who is putting together his first band and he'll say "I want to be a rock star."

 

The funny thing is that football player will figure things out... most likely when he isn't offered any college scholarships, or he plays against someone who is bigger, stronger, and faster, and he gets his ass whupped.

 

But the musician kid might take until he's 36 to finally figure out that he's not going to be a rock star. Or in some cases, even older.

 

Broken record time - you CAN have a career in music, very easily as a matter of fact... if you're willing to sell instruments, teach lessons, play in a few different bands, etc. And if you are a gifted songwriter, you might even make some money that way. And there is nothing wrong with teaching, or sales.

[BlueStrat]

 

And there is nothing wrong with teaching, or sales.

 

 

No, there isn't, but to me, selling instruments is to being a professional musician what selling court shoes at Footlocker is to being a pro basketball player. It just seems weird that I'd have to become a salesman and a teacher to call myself a pro musician. Not that there's anything wrong with those trades. I wish I'd have become a teacher 20 years ago. My wife and I would have summers off together.

[pjrake]

\WTF? Where did you buy your CDs? In the 90s, I never paid more than 14 bucks for a CD, and usually in the $12-13 range. Today, 10 years later, I can still get them for 16 bucks all day long. Considering production costs, how many other products have only increased 15% in ten years?

i remember the first CD i bought was Malmsteen's Fire & Ice at a local record store and i paid $18 for it.

most of the CD's i purchased were from Tower Records and unless it was a new release, i would pay around $16-$18 for them. new releases were about $14.

maybe it was priced more here in NYC. the interwebs weren't around to compare prices back then

-PJ

[richardmac]

There is a very important distinction here. You're talking about being a professional musician, and I'm talking about making a living in the music business, and you're right - they are not the same thing. Making a living in the music business is considerably easier than making a living as a pro musician.

 

A musician is a person who writes or plays music. A professional is defined as "following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain."

 

To me, a professional musician is someone who writes or plays music as a full time job (meaning gets paid.) A semi-professional musician is someone who writes or plays music part time and gets paid to do it.

 

People who work a music-related day job and then write or perform at night (for money) are semi-pros. So you can be making a living in the music business and be a semi-professional musician at the same time.

[HKSblade1]

Enforcement will be the only method of protecting the intellectual property of the artists from torrents etc. Very late in the game to do so. Software companies are hit very hard with musician and home studio hacks not willing to shell out the $ for their luxuries. If they could steal the hardware they would.

 

Digital medium has no value. When people bought cd's and lp's they took proper care of it (most did) or at least were pissed as hell if their pal borrowed it and scratched it. Downloading of something that isn't physical, they have no sense of value.

 

Even with mediums, it wasn't the argument a CD cost X dollars to make or what the production costs involved were to the artists having any meaning to the buyer either. It was the physical copy of medium they valued. This to me is why a vast majority of downloaders cannot find value in the art itself.... there is no physical medium to remind them.

 

Without the physical medium, less can see harm in stealing the works since they feel it has no value in the first place.

 

Read the news blogs about the case that was just settled in MI. Kids all saying "hey, it's not like she stole cd's from the store, it was only a file"

 

They value their Ipod, but the files are of no real value. They valued cd's and bought special jackets, holders and cases to safely store the valued mediums. Digital files have ZERO value and that is why most see this as no big deal or that the files should be free anyway.

 

The idea of I'll buy a shirt or see the band is bull{censored} for the most part, but answers the same value question. A concert ticket or tee shirt is a value since it is physical in form. Digitized music is 1's and 0's, it is not visible and therefore nobody cares about it's "worth"

[Instrospection]

Richard, you have some good points. I agree that the opportunity to be involved with music and pay bills is there, but like BlueStrat says, it basically depends on what degree you feel like you're selling your soul out while doing so. I know of alot of producers/ engineers having to take on alot of post production work and commercials and jingles, and that's admittedly not what they'd really like to do--mixing records or producing them. The paying work for what you really want to do is getting smaller and smaller.

[richardmac]

Digital medium has no value. (snip) Digitized music is 1's and 0's, it is not visible and therefore nobody cares about it's "worth"

It is true that most people don't have a problem downloading digital files illegally. But I just got a check three days ago in the mail from CDBaby because I sold music on iTunes. So digital music definitely still has value to me. My wife went on iTunes yesterday and bought $15 worth of music, so it's got value to her. And no, she didn't buy my music.

So I would not say that digital medium has no value. You're right about the t-shirt thing, though.

You're also right that if people could easily steal hardware, they would.

[richardmac]

Richard, you have some good points. I agree that the opportunity to be involved with music and pay bills is there, but like BlueStrat says, it basically depends on what degree you feel like you're selling your soul out while doing so. I know of alot of producers/ engineers having to take on alot of post production work and commercials and jingles, and that's admittedly not what they'd really like to do--mixing records or producing them. The paying work for what you really want to do is getting smaller and smaller.

 

 

I can totally relate. I got a BS degree in Music Business and worked in retail for a while and absolutely hated it. So I went back and got a BS in Elementary Ed, taught for 5 years, and then got into educational technology, which is my current job, and which I LOVE. And I'm a hobbyist musician who is making the transition to semi-pro.

 

People who've known me a long time wonder why I didn't go into music full time and stay with it. They say "Don't you like doing music anymore?" And I say "I LOVE doing music. But only on my own terms." I've given lessons (hated it,) I've recorded bands I did not like (hated it,) and I've done some other junk I've hated. Right now, I do music part time, and I choose what I want to do. I'm having a blast learning new cover tunes and writing more original tunes and working on putting on a better show.

 

I've kicked around the idea of Taxi, and of trying to record some songs that could get placed with artists, but again, I don't think it would be fun so I won't do that. If I join Taxi, it will be to try to get some songs from my upcoming third CD into small indie films or maybe TV.

[Scafeets]

 

He's trolling on a concept . There's undoubtedly a premium market. The first time I heard of OnLive, I got it. Game publishers would rather rent content than have anyone actually own it - that could be an indication of the subscription model taking off in other industries.

 

 

You're right. I think the subscription model will be the ultimate formula to put money back in the artists' pockets. Until there's a defense for it, Stream-ripping will still siphon off a substantial amount of potential revenue. But at least the subscription model avoids the biggest rip-off in the American royalty system. I'm talking about the fact that the US -- thanks to the never-ending lobbying efforts of the NAB -- is the only civilized country without a performance royalty for airplay. Since the broadcasters missed the boat on internet radio and sattellite services, the artists are compensated (slightly) more fairly for their efforts in these new media channels.

[pjrake]

maybe a bit OT, but i thought i share this here.

there's a book coming out tomorrow called "Free: The Future of a Radical Price" by Chris Anderson and on Amazon there's a small write-up and found this interesting (highlighted in bold):

In the digital marketplace, the most effective price is no price at all, argues Anderson (The Long Tail). He illustrates how savvy businesses are raking it in with indirect routes from product to revenue with such models as cross-subsidies (giving away a DVR to sell cable service) and freemiums (offering Flickr for free while selling the superior FlickrPro to serious users). New media models have allowed successes like Obama's campaign billboards on Xbox Live, Webkinz dolls and Radiohead's name-your-own-price experiment with its latest album. A generational and global shift is at play—those below 30 won't pay for information, knowing it will be available somewhere for free, and in China, piracy accounts for about 95% of music consumption—to the delight of artists and labels, who profit off free publicity through concerts and merchandising. Anderson provides a thorough overview of the history of pricing and commerce, the mental transaction costs that differentiate zero and any other price into two entirely different markets, the psychology of digital piracy and the open-source war between Microsoft and Linux. As in Anderson's previous book, the thought-provoking material is matched by a delivery that is nothing short of scintillating. (July)

thoughts?

-PJ

[jaytee123]

It's not over...it's an ongoing battle, the same as any other type of crime is an ongoing battle. I doubt anyone will ever see the end, but we can do as much as we can to stop things like this. If I were you, I would search back through the history on your web browser and copy those domain names into a document, and report them to the FCC. There may not be an end to the war, but we can still fight it.

If we fight the war on the side of the record industry, could we see that they follow some ethics this time around, too?:poke:

[MaxKincaide]

If we fight the war on the side of the record industry, could we see that they follow some ethics this time around, too?:poke:

 

 

Don't fight the war on the side of the record industry...fight on the side of the artist.

 

I agree, the record labels have quite a bit they need to change as well, but the bottom line should be that the artist is given a worthy return for providing quality entertainment for an audience.

[BlueStrat]

in China, piracy accounts for about 95% of music consumption—to the delight of artists and labels, who profit off free publicity through concerts and merchandising .

There is one glaring problem with this assessment: A huge number of musicians being pirated in China are international artists, not allowed to play nor sell licensed merchandise there. Any merch being sold is likely pirated knockoffs as well.

[soundwave106]

You're right. I think the subscription model will be the ultimate formula to put money back in the artists' pockets. Until there's a defense for it, Stream-ripping will still siphon off a substantial amount of potential revenue. But at least the subscription model avoids the biggest rip-off in the American royalty system. I'm talking about the fact that the US -- thanks to the never-ending lobbying efforts of the NAB -- is the only civilized country without a performance royalty for airplay. Since the broadcasters missed the boat on internet radio and sattellite services, the artists are compensated (slightly) more fairly for their efforts in these new media channels.

 

 

Well, the satellite and Internet radio deal in itself highlighted a problem: the original royalty rates were not scaled with small webcasters in mind, causing the Internet radio community to raise a {censored}us. Even now, terrestrial radio gets a *much* better deal royalty wise versus Internet or satellite radio, although I believe it is better scaled.

 

I always thought that the ruckus showed just how behind the times the record industry was, and how the Internet was able to catch them by surprise. Rather then allow alternative revenue models to flourish, dinosaurs in the record industry chose to focus exclusively on fighting both the pirates, *and* the potential new revenue models (like satellite or Internet radio). The RIAA was the main force behind the new media royalty lobbying from what I heard. (I'd always wondered if things would be differently if it was one of the musician unions lobbying for the royalty rate.)

 

The CD is no longer "cool" among the young -- if they are going to buy anything, it's a digital download. So music companies that focus 80% on the CD as they have in the past are going to have problems.

 

Nothing you can do to change that. Touring, merchandising, and brands are your main revenue sources now. This is less lucrative than the old CD model, certainly for the music companies this is the case. Plus there's more competition because musical instruments and recording equipment is cheaper than ever -- music becomes even less lucrative. (Not that it was a super-lucrative career to begin with.) I think that this shifts the type of artist that "makes it", as we have seen.

[Nijyo]

 

I would argue that, especially among the younger segment, the amount of technical users able to open a torrent or run a file sharing service is more than 10%. In addition, MP3s are small enough to be traded by email, and on blogs / social networks you do find a *lot* of trading. I have often wondered whether, these days, more of the "piracy" comes from this method versus other methods.

 

 

Opening a .torrent is easy, you click on it (though you need to get a BT client, and I think only Linux dists routinely come with one). Setting up a file sharing service (unless you mean running a P2P client) is much more difficult.

 

You may have a point in the social networking bit (particularly blogs), but things like Facebook/Myspace have systems in place that attempt to limit that sort of thing, AFAIK.

[soundwave106]

You may have a point in the social networking bit (particularly blogs), but things like Facebook/Myspace have systems in place that attempt to limit that sort of thing, AFAIK.

 

 

In a way. I have seen a lot of people link to songs via Youtube as well as Blip.FM and Imeem on Facebook.

 

It's probably going to be difficult for the later two to stay afloat IMHO, as there isn't a whole lot in *just* offering audio. Warner has stakes in Imeem for instance but I don't think they put a whole lot of faith in developing a model with it.

 

But Youtube probably will survive. Google's been pretty savvy at making money of the Internet so far (although Youtube is still losing money). I know there's been a longstanding royalties battle between Youtube and the record industry. Hopefully something can be worked out of that.

 

After all, there are a number of file sharing systems that lurk as an alternative. A tracked Youtube video is much preferable to a non-tracked MP3.

[2732]

Some people still respect the artists and want them to continue making music.

 

 

Not nearly enough people, but some.

[New Trail]

 

.......The CD is no longer "cool" among the young -- if they are going to buy anything, it's a digital download........

 

 

True. I don't my GF's 16 year old daughter owns ANY Cd's at all. What we have now is disposable music. Listen to it for a while, then delete it.

[richardmac]

Those MP3 players sound like crap, but all the kids have 'em glued in their ears. Maybe they don't know better? Maybe when they get a little older their ears will mature and they will buy expensive tube LP players!

 

 

I'm hoping. I'm giving away 128k mp3 files because they're cassette tape quality to me and I cater to an older market, one who HOPEFULLY still sees the 128k mp3 format as the equivalent of a cassette tape. When you decide you want the music, for real, come back and buy the CD or a higher file format for a small amount of money.

 

This approach wouldn't have a prayer with the teen market. They'd never buy the better sounding files because they don't care about fidelity. The record comment is ironically funny... I remember jumping for joy when I got rid of my records for CD's... I had records skip on the first play, I had scratches, snaps, crackles, pops, all that stuff... all gone with the CD. Today's teen is now thinking records are all so "cool" and "retro" and the hip bands are selling vinyl. The crackles and the pops that records get maybe won't matter so much to this generation, since they obviously couldn't tell good audio quality if it came up and kicked them in the ass.

[Scafeets]

 

.. (Not that it was a super-lucrative career to begin with.) I think that this shifts the type of artist that "makes it", as we have seen.

 

Nah....the same lowest-common-denomiator stuff will always prevail because, by and large, the music buying public (recordings, concerts, etc.) are musically illiterate and have profoundly awful taste. Every once in a while, a true talent will rise. But cream isn't the only thing that rises to the top. Most {censored} floats.

[richardmac]

Sad, but currently true. OTOH, if there was a technological way to protect music from being copied illegally, the market for recordings would eventually come back.

 

 

I think this is true. I also think that the genie is already out of the bottle and there's no way to put it back in again. People are so used to ripping music that no matter what happens, they'll rip it. No technology will change that. I think it's sad, but I think two things are true:

 

1. A percentage of listeners (I'm one) will continue to buy music, and this percentage will constitute the profit that recording artists make from recordings.

2. Artists will make more money performing than from music sales.

[Drock]

It just sucks for those who spend inordinate amounts of time writing and recording, and dont have the means to play live. Those are some of the artists people kill by stealing their work. I always hear people claim "they make so much money live", as if everybody is in the fraction of a percentage of all touring musicians. Even most live acts don't make anything above what amounts to minimum wage all things considered.

[richardmac]

It just sucks for those who spend inordinate amounts of time writing and recording, and dont have the means to play live. Those are some of the artists people kill by stealing their work. I always hear people claim "they make so much money live", as if everybody is in the fraction of a percentage of all touring musicians. Even most live acts don't make anything above what amounts to minimum wage all things considered.

I agree with you. If I lived in a perfect world, I'd come out with one album per year which sold 5 million copies, and do a brief 4 week tour. I'm not being snarky, I'm totally serious.

But the reality is that of the people who make their living as a musician, ie actually doing music, playing live gigs has always been the big percentage of their income. The only cats who write and record music for a living instead of gigging are the guys who do commercials, write for TV, etc. And that's a small percentage of people. Even the little teeny tiny fish make more money playing gigs than selling music.

That's why so many people don't do music for a living. They have a day job instead and music becomes something they look forward to, nights and weekends. And holidays. Some guys make guitars... I just read a 7 page thread about a guy who made his own copy of Andy Summers' Telecaster. I got so fired up reading it that I'm buying a used Tele off a friend of mine in a week or two. The dude making the guitar makes furniture for a living.

Personally, I am totally over the fact that I can't make a living in the music business. And the day I dropped the pressure on myself and decided to only do fun stuff in music was the day I became a whole lot happier. Of course, I very much enjoy my day job so that makes it easier. Just saying.

[Kramerguy]

It just sucks for those who spend inordinate amounts of time writing and recording, and dont have the means to play live. Those are some of the artists people kill by stealing their work. I always hear people claim "they make so much money live", as if everybody is in the fraction of a percentage of all touring musicians. Even most live acts don't make anything above what amounts to minimum wage all things considered.

 

 

Only the bands that are selling out arenas are making any money touring.. everyone else either breaks even or loses their asses.

 

The idea that bands make a killing touring has been disproven here 10 times over.

[Scafeets]

I don't know who started the myth that bands make a lot of money on the road. Sure... the acts that consistently sell out arenas do fine..... if they're properly managed (that cuts the success rate to about 70%) aren't themseleves {censored}-ups(take another 20% out) and don't run into legal, health, marital, girlfriend or ego problems (uh...anything left?). You get the picture. As the "guy from the record company" (yes, I worked for the Dark Side) I toured with a number of multi-platinum artists and many of them were living on chump change at the height of their careers, and were broke as soon as the hits stopped coming.

There are so many things that conspire to screw up a good touring band that it's really amazing anyone survives and prospers....yet some do. Often without "hits" in the top 40 sense. As examples, I'll mention the Allmans, along with assorted solo tours by everyone in the band; the Flecktones (and their spin-off solo projects) and several others in a variety of genres who kept their stuff together for decades.

But making money as a touring artist means that at some point, people had to hear you through the media, and buy your stuff in some quanitites to justify label support and ticket sales.

If a new artist sells only 5,000 downloads/CDs/etc. while 50,000 get pirated, he MAY have enough juice for a limited club tour. But if that same artist sells 50,000 "units" - maybe they generate enough buzz to get a label/manager/agent/promoter/whatever to take them to the next level like a supporting act on a big tour, radio/video exposure, etc.

That, among many other reasons, is why piracy sucks a big hairy one -- it's keeping a lot of acts from selling sufficient quantities to get the buzz they need to take it to the next level.

It astonishes me that after all the dialog, there are still actual musicians and songwriters on this forum who don't get it. Illegal downloading is a curse and a cancer and it's got to stop if you want to see the so-called "industry" (defined as any money-making venture) stop swirling down the drain.