Members fatusstratus Posted March 2, 2011 Members Share Posted March 2, 2011 I don't know about you Put I can't think of any artists I have discovered by "trusted filters" such as radio... I have I don't mean it to prove or disprove some point, just mentioning my experience -- but , yeah, I've come across artists through "trusted filters" like radio.Some magazines or websites I suppose could also be used as "trusted filters" -- though I suppose friends can come into that category too as you trust em and they are filters...maybe more like "centralized filters" would be a better way of describing. But the radio I listen to tends to be more public radio and such so it's not a "$5 million Clear Channel marketing push" type thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted March 2, 2011 Moderators Share Posted March 2, 2011 Not true. I tried to listen to your albums and couldn't. You had a potential listener right here. I personally feel that music is meant to be shared and given away.As far as 100,000 listeners, that happens OFTEN in the urban game on Youtube. That 100,000 views will give you very few subs, Twitter followers and fans. You'd be surprised. What gets you fans are longevity, QUANTITY of music made, and consistency. A good amount of 'followers' or 'fans' to have is about 8k-15k. That is fairly standard. When you have radio exposure, the number jumps to around 80k-200k or so.I assure you richardmac if you cleaned up that track I mentioned and got it placed in regular rotation at your local station, you would see BIG changes in your fan base happen. Online media just can't recreate the magic of what local radio can.My beef is, I know the song has potential to be good enough for easy rock listening FM station in your city. Instead of awarding merit and considering you as a local artist, they are too busy supporting a monopoly and keeping a guy like yourself out. If I was to be your manager (I'm not selling myself.. just giving an example), I would take your song, fix it up, and then aggressively go after your local FM radio station and demand regular rotation. That would be my priority. I'd also tell the DJ that your album could be downloaded for free. We'd make a new CD to sell live. I'm not in denial. I see it all the time when an artist in the UK gets played on radio and then gets fans. Youtube just doesn't do the same magic. Youtube views are almost meaningless. It's like the fans almost want your local radio stations seal of approval before they like you. Seriously. I know the power of the airwaves and this is my main beef.. It requires REGULAR rotation though. Not getting played twice. This is what I would go after as your manages. Most other managers would do something totally different. Some genres just don't generally get airplay...blues is one, jazz another. We are used to it. Which is why we rely on sales of the CDs to get the music out. Our target audience skews older (35+), and frankly, we know most of our target audience are not going to download materials. Plus...I personally would not want anyone using an iPhone, iPad, iPod or even laptop/PC speakers to listen to my music. It needs to be played through a real stereo system (amp and speakers). That is why we 'produce' our music over time in a studio (or in my case live)...we don't knock out a new collection of material every week. It takes time to craft, develop and orchestrate....and record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted March 2, 2011 Members Share Posted March 2, 2011 I have I don't mean it to prove or disprove some point, just mentioning my experience -- but , yeah, I've come across artists through "trusted filters" like radio.Some magazines or websites I suppose could also be used as "trusted filters" -- though I suppose friends can come into that category too as you trust em and they are filters...maybe more like "centralized filters" would be a better way of describing.But the radio I listen to tends to be more public radio and such so it's not a "$5 million Clear Channel marketing push" type thing. Ya know, I have too but only on public broadcasting stations that aren't beholden to play the top 40 drivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted March 2, 2011 Members Share Posted March 2, 2011 Plus...I personally would not want anyone using an iPhone, iPad, iPod or even laptop/PC speakers to listen to my music. It needs to be played through a real stereo system (amp and speakers). That is why we 'produce' our music over time in a studio (or in my case live)...we don't knock out a new collection of material every week. It takes time to craft, develop and orchestrate....and record. Ouch! I agree with you a lot but I have to call you out on that one. iPods are perhaps the biggest way that people listen to music right now. Computers are another big way, but not as big as iPods. By ignoring both, you eliminate 80% of the listening public and in this day and age where few people buy, you're pretty much cutting your own throat. Not only that, but the headphones the iPods ship with nowadays are actually pretty good for in-ear. The original ones where {censored}, no doubt, but for about the past 2 years they've been pretty darn good. mikedavid, I think you make a very good point about local radio. My third CD got local radio play, but not a lot of it. In the Tampa music scene, you really have to play the political game to get into heavy rotation on the "cool hip" community and college stations. You really gotta play the game. And you have ZERO chance of getting on the local Clear Channel stations - they don't play any local musicians, ever. In terms of remixing and adding more ish to my already recorded music, actually I've considered posting GarageBand files of some of my songs and let people do whatever they want. But I don't have any great desire to do it myself. I'd do it the exact same way again because it sounds almost exactly like what I wanted. I'd tune the vocals, that's about it. I wanted a 80's style Romantics sort of song and that's what came out. I'm not really writing retro pop/rock any more, anyway. I also agree with you about giving music away. I'm about to rebuild my website and move all my music onto it and allow free downloads. I had all of it for free on BandCamp at one point, but when they said they were going to start charging after 500 downloads I stopped doing that, because I don't want that cost. PS - It is probably for the best that you didn't do a review of Pat's music. I can't imagine what he'd say if someone did. He's got a lifetime's worth of experience in this business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 2, 2011 Members Share Posted March 2, 2011 Not true. I tried to listen to your albums and couldn't. You had a potential listener right here. Guess you missed the link on my website that said "listen". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted March 3, 2011 Moderators Share Posted March 3, 2011 Ouch! I agree with you a lot but I have to call you out on that one. iPods are perhaps the biggest way that people listen to music right now. Computers are another big way, but not as big as iPods. By ignoring both, you eliminate 80% of the listening public and in this day and age where few people buy, you're pretty much cutting your own throat. Not only that, but the headphones the iPods ship with nowadays are actually pretty good for in-ear. The original ones where {censored}, no doubt, but for about the past 2 years they've been pretty darn good. Richard, regardless how great you think the earbuds are these days, the audio quality of an mp3 is still crap... chopped up crap. Sorry, but any audiophile will bear this out. If you listen to a good, well mastered version of a song as an mp3 and then compare it to the same song on a CD, through a real stereo, even a car stereo....sorry...no comparison. Too many years mixing and playing in live bands spoiled me for listening through ear buds to overly compressed minimized audio tracks. I don't even like wearing full-sized high-end 'cans'.... I'm not ignoring these other media, btw, what I'm saying is that my music (and blue strat's, since I have several of his CDs, and he has mine, as well ) should not be reviewed as heard via any of those substandard formats, because it wasn't mixed and mastered for those formats... and most people have the crappiest POS speakers for their PCs, especially at work. (mine here in the office at the RDF is 'full HD' via HDMI, and I still don't like it that much ); mikedavid was intending to download music and listen to it on his iPhone and then review it...which, for Urban, may be perfect, since it is all beat and mouth....not much real nuance to worry about there...but that tiny little device is not going to 'get it', IMHO. Now, at home, my PC has a full blown audio system with satellite speakers, a subwoofer, 60W amplifier with >.02%thd etc. (originally bought for gaming during my 'Quake' period...MommaMack puts the audio on mute when she uses the PC ), but I will still do my 'first listen' to a CD on the 'main' stereo system (12" woofers, full surround); also my car has a very good stereo system, and I had to do a swap on it a few years ago under warranty and had them give me a new one without the mp3 player in it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 We sell about 100 million ringtone, mp3, mp4 every month to mobile phone clients, in 28 months about as much as iTune since its existence. In other words, it isn't true that music is only stolen by consumers. Via iTune we sell another 5.5 million per half a year. Dream on, or make music which people are willing to pay for. yes, ringtones are such a great way to listen to music... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 yes, ringtones are such a great way to listen to music... doesn't sound worst then mp3, actually a tiny bit better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 the audiophile is about 0.001% of the market Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 Richard, regardless how great you think the earbuds are these days, the audio quality of an mp3 is still crap... chopped up crap. Sorry, but any audiophile will bear this out. If you listen to a good, well mastered version of a song as an mp3 and then compare it to the same song on a CD, through a real stereo, even a car stereo....sorry...no comparison. Too many years mixing and playing in live bands spoiled me for listening through ear buds to overly compressed minimized audio tracks. I don't even like wearing full-sized high-end 'cans'.... I'm not ignoring these other media, btw, what I'm saying is that my music (and blue strat's, since I have several of his CDs, and he has mine, as well ) should not be reviewed as heard via any of those substandard formats, because it wasn't mixed and mastered for those formats... and most people have the crappiest POS speakers for their PCs, especially at work. (mine here in the office at the RDF is 'full HD' via HDMI, and I still don't like it that much ); mikedavid was intending to download music and listen to it on his iPhone and then review it...which, for Urban, may be perfect, since it is all beat and mouth....not much real nuance to worry about there...but that tiny little device is not going to 'get it', IMHO. Now, at home, my PC has a full blown audio system with satellite speakers, a subwoofer, 60W amplifier with >.02%thd etc. (originally bought for gaming during my 'Quake' period...MommaMack puts the audio on mute when she uses the PC ), but I will still do my 'first listen' to a CD on the 'main' stereo system (12" woofers, full surround); also my car has a very good stereo system, and I had to do a swap on it a few years ago under warranty and had them give me a new one without the mp3 player in it! There is a big, massive, huge difference between 128k mp3 and 320k mp3. One sounds like ass, and the other is pretty good sounding. So you can't just say mp3's are crap. Now, to someone with golden ears, like say Alan Parsons, yes, even the 320k mp3 will sound like ass. But the average person won't tell the difference between 320k mp3 and full fidelity aif. That's why I do 320 mp3 files online - because I agree that the mp3 files do sound like ass. But 128k is old hat - even the illegal file sharing folks have now switched to sharing 320k. And the reality is that any potential fan is probably going to check you out on computer speakers or their iPod. But I see your point and when the local paper guy did a review of my CD yes, I definitely gave him an actual CD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fatusstratus Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 But 128k is old hat - even the illegal file sharing folks have now switched to sharing 320k. I've even seen FLAC becoming popular with those guys. My "MP3" player is a Sansa, like $35 or something and it even supports FLAC.I think the days of "download or personal players = low res MP3" are over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 doesn't sound worst then mp3, actually a tiny bit better Yes, but anything played through a cell phone speaker sounds like ass, doesn't it? But your point is a good one, and I will concede that ringtones are big business compared to everything else in the music biz. I wonder if cell phones will eventually have sound on them like a mini- Bose WAVE technology system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fatusstratus Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 I wonder if cell phones will eventually have sound on them like a mini- Bose WAVE technology system. hmm, I doubt they will use a "waveguide" porting scheme (almost a "folded horn" type deal) - it's still a lot of real estate for a mobile phone. I think there may be other technologies though - maybe a decent portion of the phone, even the screen will become a "driver" like a magnaplanar (maybe even complimentary sides to get some sort of stereo imagine) or maybe there will be something along the lines of that ultrasonic heterodyning tech...something like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 hmm, I doubt they will use a "waveguide" porting scheme (almost a "folded horn" type deal) - it's still a lot of real estate for a mobile phone.I think there may be other technologies though - maybe a decent portion of the phone, even the screen will become a "driver" like a magnaplanar (maybe even complimentary sides to get some sort of stereo imagine) or maybe there will be something along the lines of that ultrasonic heterodyning tech...something like that yeah, I didn't mean an actual WAVE speaker, but something technologically equivalent in quality. I'm a Luddite when it comes to new technology! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 You can easily make your own ring tones on a Mac. I'm sure it's also possible on Windows. That doesn't seem like a good omen for the ring tone market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Poker99 Posted March 3, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 I don't know about you Put I can't think of any artists I have discovered by "trusted filters" such as radio... You are not the "average" music fan. You represent like what, 0,1% of the population? You're a musician, and a music lover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fatusstratus Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 yeah, I didn't mean an actual WAVE speaker, but something technologically equivalent in quality. ah, OK - I get the drift now. I kind of wonder if or when ringtones will get "too much" in terms of volume, full spectrum sound and such -- I mean where it'll get sooo annoying (already is to me, i use vibrate) that society at large puts the kibosh on it. Maybe a little like guitar amps -- "I want that cranked stack sound, but I live in a dorm" type thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members formula428 Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 IMO -- I don't think you can call music a product anymore. Your goal off a product is to make money. From what I've been told, musicians generally do not, at least nothing compared to the record companies/producers/retailers. With all the replication technology and concept of digital media, it's impossible to prevent illegal duplication/distribution. Music instead should be a promotion. Cut down on the incurred costs from the big-time studio. Learn and do it yourself. Get or rent a good sounding room (if you can). Stop paying the big-executive checks, only to see you get virtually nothing in return. Make all your money through touring. The fact is, people may be reluctant to buy a CD or an MP3, but they will go to a live concert. The end result? So what if successful musicians don't make millions. They are not responsible for saving lives, like a surgeon. They do not ensure the safety of millions crossing a bridge, like a bridge engineer. They all (at least according to their interviews) started their career from passion, from a dream. I think it's fitting to see these people make 50k to 100k per year. Those who are truly in it for the dream will stay. The money-hungry artists will bail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Poker99 Posted March 3, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 Make all your money through touring. Good luck with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members formula428 Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 Good luck with that. I know it's not much, but it's better than $0 for music. It's only a matter of time before the music industry is just about 100% pirated and only the most loyal of fans buy CDs and DVDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PermaNoobie Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 With all the replication technology and concept of digital media, it's impossible to prevent illegal duplication/distribution. Laws, especially civil laws (most of copyright infringement is civil) don't really make things impossible. they can though provide redress.Even criminal laws don't make things impossible - people break laws every day. Make all your money through touring. not saying it's right or wrong, it's just one strategy, but it might not be a one-size-fits all solution. Jaron Lanier talks about how he used to of that opinion, but he personally started seeing flaws with it later in life (not saying it's proof of anything, but it is a perspective on the issue by someone who was instrumental in the "free" movement).Other places it might not fit are larger things that maybe don't travel well (size of production or fixed environment or something) or music that is a recording project (and isn't really amenable to live performance) The fact is, people may be reluctant to buy a CD or an MP3, but they will go to a live concert. I don't know - I really just don't know one way or the other . I wonder there if there is a demographic component . Just personally, or more like "in my market segment", I can catch some concerts (chamber music, etc) decently, but some Jazz stuff around here happens in relatively small specialist venues so often the shows, at least the early shows, get sold out and there is "my money" left on the table -- but where I am in life (other obligations) tends to make concert going much more difficult than when I was younger, at the same time, those obligations have put me in a financial position where dropping the $ on a recording is basically a non-issue. They all (at least according to their interviews) started their career from passion, from a dream. I think it's fitting to see these people make 50k to 100k per year. Even that could be ambitious - I think 2010 US median household was like $47K or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted March 3, 2011 Moderators Share Posted March 3, 2011 yet if you examine the cost of touring, it too is becoming a losing proposition for the small scale musician...fuel, food and hotel rooms add up to over $100 a day in many places. Can you make triple that daily on the road, per person? Otherwise, there isn't going to be much to live on when you come off the road. No, sorry my take on the 'tour constantly' approach is that it will not carry a band and may just barely carry a solo act briefly, but there is a rapid approach to the point of diminishing returns. Not to mention the mental and social impact of living without a real 'home' to go back to. Anyone who has spent time on the road will remember the issues: the uncertainty, the hassles, the sense of disorientation...it takes a toll on most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PermaNoobie Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 Not to mention the mental and social impact of living without a real 'home' to go back to. Anyone who has spent time on the road will remember the issues: the uncertainty, the hassles, the sense of disorientation...it takes a toll on most. Even just general biz travelling, with airplanes and Russian drivers picking you up in town cars and a decent hotel and per diem -- SUCKSliving out of a suitcase sucks Not really a comment on the viability I suppose - but it is a comment on suck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members formula428 Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 Even just general biz travelling, with airplanes and Russian drivers picking you up in town cars and a decent hotel and per diem -- SUCKSliving out of a suitcase sucksNot really a comment on the viability I suppose - but it is a comment on suck Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 3, 2011 Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 Music instead should be a promotion.It already is. It used to be the object, but now, it's a vehicle to sell an artist as a brand or to sell schwag. ipods, etc. As a wise forumite who used to frequent this site once said, music has become the Pez to sell Pez dispensers. This was said about three years ago. Make all your money through touring.Sure, if you're already famous. But for unknown bands, touring is a loss leader, an expense to promote your music. If you music is promotion, and touring is promotion,what the hell are you promoting? T shirt sales? Unknown bands have to compete with local bands who are not only giving away free CDs but playing for free too. I've said it so many times I'm sick of it, but once again: "free" is not a business model, not a sustainable one anyway. But that's what's happening. If a band has deep enough pockets to tour for a few years and lose money, they might start to gain some traction. Might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.