Members richardmac Posted January 15, 2011 Members Share Posted January 15, 2011 If you want to play in the music game, your gonna have to find YOUR way to make coin and most of that will probably include live shows and merch. I would agree with that to an extent - or rather I'd clarify it: If you want to make a living doing original music, that will mostly be live shows, merch, and you're going to be poor. If you want to make a middle class living in music, look into retail, education, instrument design/repair, etc. There's no shortage of rich kids buying Paul R Smiths at Guitar Center from what I've seen. It depends on what you want to do, but what you want to do can change radically as you get older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flatfinger Posted January 15, 2011 Author Members Share Posted January 15, 2011 Earlier someone mentioned the effect of the boomers. It's possibly quite significant. I'm 57, I have purchased $000's of music through both vinyl and cd's over the years, most of the music I will ever buy. I am part of a large group of folks who have helped the music business over the past decades. Sure, there may be a lot of great new music out there, but without hearing it on a radio station ( I do not hear things I would ever buy-it's {censored}e-I do not plan to pay for Lady Gaga electronica or the like-that;s all that plays) or my son telling me about it, I'll never hear it to buy it. I've just bought a USB turntable to move my vinyl into the mac. That's another 350 LP's worth of music I haven't heard in years.My son is a holdout, as a musician himself, he still clings to the idea of supporting an artist, but he is in the minority, according to him. An earlier poster is right, if you give folks a chance to buy a title or cd for free, they will.If you want to play in the music game, your gonna have to find YOUR way to make coin and most of that will probably include live shows and merch. I think that the primary challenge ahead is going to be education ; your son get's it, most sadly do not . Humans mostly become concerned when something affects them immediately or in a reasonably soon amount of time . Long term thinking isn't valued enough in our culture. It will be difficult to qualify and quantify , but I'm convinced that without some modicum of patronage , we won't have as many timeless classics ....; that is to say music that becomes loved for more that a few years and then is quickly forgotten ( BB top 100 anyone ??) . It's not crucial to the survival of the species or anything , but it is a bummer . There is a lack of appreciation for a songwriter who does it over the long run with craft and persistence , dedication and devotion . Too many think it's all a few seconds of inspiration and that some people are just born with some magical amount of luck that makes them write great songs . It's 1% inspiration and 99 % perspiration. Another difference is that the baby boom generation didn't have quite as many choices .. no hundreds of channels or high tech gizmo's to play around with . The fact that many a kid probably had access to a member of the family who could 've shown them the ropes on the real guitar was of no interest when guitar hero and it's plastic emulation controller and big screen surrogate appreciative video fans became available . You have to have a REAL appreciation for something in order to value it . When you have a device with 10,000 songs on it , it begs the question , have you any of those songs that you really love , or , are you simply trying to complete the biggest collection in the history of gadgetry ?? how can you claim to really appreciate a song ( let alone it's creator ) when you couldn't even pony up a buck for it ????? I have to admit that in the last few years, it's finally begun to dawn on me ( an this was a totally alien concept to me because of my own paradigm ) that allot of folks , aren't that into music ...... They may not suffer from amusia...., but when it's all said and done, it's just not a high priority to them . So basically if it isn't a core value ( They haven't ever had to rely on music as a sole source of solace during a particularly bad time for instance ) then they just don't care what happens if the music creation community is getting the legs cut out from underneath them . It's not there problem .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted January 15, 2011 Members Share Posted January 15, 2011 You are right, flatfinger. Plain and simple. Did you ever see that movie with Stalone and Snipes where they're in the future, and all the radio stations play are old TV commercial jingles? And that's what they listen to for pleasure? Obviously that's not going to happen, but I wonder if our own distant future is just as bleak. Here's something we haven't talked about, at least in this particular thread - You know who made money recently writing a catchy song? The dude that came up with Free Credit Report dot com. That damn song was catchy and it was everywhere, and whoever wrote that thing probably made a pretty good chunk of change. OK, so you can't put out your own CD and tour and make a great living in the future - what's left? There will still be money writing for video games, tv shows, tv commercials, movie soundtracks, national radio spots, cable TV, and so on and so forth. Sooo.... could it be that, in order to make a living, that's where the most talented songwriters may end up going? Bleck! But if your kid wants to make a living writing music, isn't that exactly the direction you'd steer him/her? "Look, son, you've got a gift with lyrics and melodies, and we've got a candy bar to sell." Please understand - I have respect for jingle writers. It's way harder than people think and you have to be a good writer to pull it off. But when that becomes the top money making option for songwriters, the "art" of the songwriter is going to suffer dramatically. We've already seen the damage done by record labels playing it safe. It's all downhill from here. I think you're rubbing off on me, flatfinger. My opinion is getting bleaker by the minute. The sad thing is that under the scenario above, if that actually happens, the hobbyist songwriters that everyone makes fun of may end up being the only people left making something close to art. Actually, that's not sad for me, because I'm a hobbyist. Let the good times roll! OH, one more disclaimer - I think it is definitely possible to put together a band, do extensive tours, and make at least decent money. Join a very, very good Tribute band. I'm NOT being snarky - I play covers, too. It's still live music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flatfinger Posted January 15, 2011 Author Members Share Posted January 15, 2011 Well I take notice when the biggest thing to come down the pike on I-tunes is the release of an album that's forty something years old ! There's something going on .................... It's like you and me were in our teens and the big bomb being dropped was a Frank sinatra album being re-released!!!! The recycling of stuff ( no matter how good ) is an indication of a systemic ailment . I'm not going to advise that any of my younger family members go trying for a career in music anytime soon ...... (I'd tell them to get into music education if they just had to be next to music at all times...) . The sad fact is that most of the profitable industry related companies are the ones selling the software and web related stuff that sells the dream that , whilst it was always a serious long shot, is now a moster impossible no-F'ing way dream !!!. I'm not making a value judgement , nor complaining ( I haven't any horse in the race so to speak ) I just think that the eco system should be a meritocracy and be supportive of taking the artform to greater levels of accomplishment . I know that sounds pretty lofty and romanticised ... The folks who created allot of the classics were in it for the money but benefited from a decent environment.... Like I said , ( and this is a shame too) at the moment ,my best advice ( even to an uber naturally talented songwriter who's also got the craft down cold) would be.............................. go to medical school !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members uitar9 Posted January 15, 2011 Members Share Posted January 15, 2011 your right, folks aren't into music like they used to be-again the number of buyers of cd's/lp's is shrinking (even in electronic format)-{censored}, you can hit you tube and listen to whatever you want, for free, whenever-there are to many free options and to few buyers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted January 15, 2011 Moderators Share Posted January 15, 2011 OH, one more disclaimer - I think it is definitely possible to put together a band, do extensive tours, and make at least decent money. Join a very, very good Tribute band. I'm NOT being snarky - I play covers, too. It's still live music. But eventually...what will the tribute bands be aping? I have always been against tribute bands, I see them as being the least creative thing you can do in music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted January 16, 2011 Members Share Posted January 16, 2011 I think the tribute bands will be aping... hey, you're right! I dunno. Elvis and the Beatles, for some reason, I think will still be covered by tribute bands. But eventually, I dunno. Then again, isn't the Boston Philharmonic a tribute band to Mozart, or whomever they decide to perform? Of course, philharmonics don't really make any money. I think they are one of the least creative things you can do in music, but no less creative than selling guitars or fixing amps. I don't have a problem with someone making a living entertaining people. Some people want to be around music at all costs. And they'd rather play "Hotel California" every night, or sell Epiphone Les Pauls every day, than show up at a desk somewhere and answer emails or whatever. I can understand it. So yeah... I'm thinking Elvis and The Beatles both survive. Like Mozart and Beethoven. And it's hard for me to say "Elvis" in the same paragraph as "Beethoven." Around here, there are tributes for almost every band you can think of. There is a Neil Diamond tribute act, which consists of an old fat guy singing Neil Diamond to a "You Sing the Hits" CD of backing tracks. And people pay to see him! Frightful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted January 16, 2011 Members Share Posted January 16, 2011 What? You don't think we'll be seeing a "Cradle of Filth" or "Vampire Weekend" tribute band 20 years form now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted January 16, 2011 Members Share Posted January 16, 2011 Cradle of Filth! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! Can't you see 75 year old bald guys doing goth makeup to go to the show? They wouldn't need makeup because they'd already look... OK, I'm not going there. That's not nice. I'll be 75 one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Poker99 Posted January 17, 2011 Members Share Posted January 17, 2011 The sad thing is that under the scenario above, if that actually happens, the hobbyist songwriters that everyone makes fun of may end up being the only people left making something close to art. Actually, that's not sad for me, because I'm a hobbyist. Let the good times roll! No, there will always be pop stars for teens, like Bieber, because history repeats itself, and with every new generation of dumb teens there will be mass-marketed crap products that will sell for a year or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted January 17, 2011 Moderators Share Posted January 17, 2011 I think the tribute bands will be aping... hey, you're right! I dunno. Elvis and the Beatles, for some reason, I think will still be covered by tribute bands. But eventually, I dunno. Then again, isn't the Boston Philharmonic a tribute band to Mozart, or whomever they decide to perform? Of course, philharmonics don't really make any money. I think they are one of the least creative things you can do in music, but no less creative than selling guitars or fixing amps. I don't have a problem with someone making a living entertaining people. Some people want to be around music at all costs. And they'd rather play "Hotel California" every night, or sell Epiphone Les Pauls every day, than show up at a desk somewhere and answer emails or whatever. I can understand it. So yeah... I'm thinking Elvis and The Beatles both survive. Like Mozart and Beethoven. And it's hard for me to say "Elvis" in the same paragraph as "Beethoven." Around here, there are tributes for almost every band you can think of. There is a Neil Diamond tribute act, which consists of an old fat guy singing Neil Diamond to a "You Sing the Hits" CD of backing tracks. And people pay to see him! Frightful. No, I don't see symphony orchestras as tribute bands; each conductor will bring a little bit of his own interpretation to what is on the page, and therefore no two orchestras under different conductors will perform a classical piece identically. I went to see the original Beatlemania, and because it was 'theater', I enjoyed it for what it was...but when bands started thinking, 'hey, we can do this and make money'...I lost my appreciation. I would much rather be fixing amps all day than going out on stage every night pretending I was Keef and playing his parts note for note...I'm jus'sayin'.... And, please, find and kill the Neil Diamond tribute guy...if he can't do it live with a band, he shouldn't be doing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.