What once was, again it will be

[3shiftgtr]

Had a conversation with some fine, skilled, working musos between sets and at the ihop after, and their point of view was LET THE MUSIC BUSINESS DIE A WONDERFUL, SLOW DEATH.

 

Hmmmm....

 

They talked about music before mass media, that there were no 'product considerations' when making music. I argued that printing press and published music has been around for centuries, and their response was "No one ever bought a castle from music publishing in the 1800's"

 

They continued to argue that performance was what it was all about and once the music business is dismantled, music will get back to being about MUSIC and artistic integrity, rather than attempts to make recorded music that sells units.

 

It was a very interesting discussion since these guys make money in the biz. One is a full timer (!!!!) and one is a part timer, but is an amazing player. They really believe that after the music biz becomes dismantled, that music will become local and artist specific, rather than being about money and culture.

 

What say you?

[Ultimate DJ]

I totally %100 percent agree. These guys are dead on. music business kills music. The idea of 'singles' makes artist focus on a couple of good songs to get popular and top the charts rather than every song being their very best.

[Surrealistic]

I think they're correct and I think there are positive aspects of that. It could mean that instead of relatively few people who've "made it" making big piles of money, there'll be a lot of people who make some money. I could live with that, but it could also mean that almost no-one makes anywhere near enough to live on.

[Poker99]

I think its total B.S.

 

The local market is already saturated with pay-to-play bands. Going more "local" will only saturate that market even more. Demand will be next to zero and that means no one will ever make money again.

 

In the old days the total music catalogue wasn't available... Now its only clicks away. People have access to more music they will ever need. And you think they will get out and watch local bands?!

 

And what about songwriters who do not perform? We owe them some of the greatest songs, and now they will get nothing for their work!?

 

Big stars will never dissapear. The masses need them. They want to idolize someone, especially kids and teens. Musical talent isn't that important, what is important is being cool or for kids to relate with the artist...

 

They continued to argue that performance was what it was all about and once the music business is dismantled, music will get back to being about MUSIC and artistic integrity, rather than attempts to make recorded music that sells units.

 

Oh the classic affirmation of someone who can't sell CDs anymore! Of course everyone who sells or who sold CDs in the past doesn't have any artistic integrity!!!

[daddymack]

'artistic integrity' is an oxymoron...

Sorry, but without some form of centralized gatekeeping the music of the world will continue to factionalize, slowly becoming just noise. The old model may no longer work, but eventually a new, more appropriate model that meets the needs of the modern media outlets will emerge. It has to, or else chaos and anarchy will ensue...we already see the results of the failure of the old model industry...a zillion crappy bands sucking up bandwidth on the web while true gems are lost in the swamp. Expectaions are still high, unrealistically...some don't recognize that the old model has failed, and think they will be signed to a multi-disc deal for megabucks...and these are the ones who are most likely to fail, yet will clog the web with their 'genius'.

God forbid we allow the American Idol mentality to rule the industry...anyone who has seen the first few episodes of any season is aware of the number of delusional people out there. Their form of gatekeeping, using a cattlecall approach, is doomed to fail long term because the process is far too 'grandiose', too flawed, and far too subjective. Labels will need ot go back to actually seeking out artists based on reputation...a concept lost over the last decades as venues vanish. The real grassroots has to come locally...there need to be places for bands and solo artists to perform and get paid, to develop, to stretch out; without which...what is there?

[MartinC]

I can't see anything wrong with a musician making serious coin. Even buying a castle from writing a worldwide hit. Sounds like sour grapes-I never made a fortune, so it's good that nobody else will. No, it's not good IMO. A musician who creates work that resonates, actually becomes culturally significant to millions of people, should be rewarded in a like scale IMO. I don't get the guilt. Like it's ok for the inventor of the pet rock, the Sham Wow, or the like, to receive millions, but the guy who writes Let It Be somehow should play a coffee house for tips and a bagel. Not the world I'd want to see.

[Gunde]

 

I can't see anything wrong with a musician making serious coin. Even buying a castle from writing a worldwide hit. Sounds like sour grapes-I never made a fortune, so it's good that nobody else will. No, it's not good IMO. A musician who creates work that resonates, actually becomes culturally significant to millions of people, should be rewarded in a like scale IMO. I don't get the guilt. Like it's ok for the inventor of the pet rock, the Sham Wow, or the like, to receive millions, but the guy who writes Let It Be somehow should play a coffee house for tips and a bagel. Not the world I'd want to see.

 

You think Katy Perry deserves millions like Paul does?

[Matximus]

People act like the record & performing business was some kind of great American gem and path to prosperity. It was a {censored} cruel and dirty business - always was and certainly will be again in whatever next model people come up with for commodifying music. Just talk with someone that was lucky enough to make it as an unrecouped band. The people I feel the worst for are 40-plus somethings that got decent traction as recording or performing artists doing good work in the late 1990s or early 2000s only to have rug yanked out from them in last ten years or so. No marketable skills; no savings. No decent way to make a buck. But, you know, anyone that doubles-down on music as a career knows what they're in for - so not much sympathy. I feel worse for people that used to make their living building homes or cars or some other {censored} people actually need.

[MartinC]

No, but it doesn't matter what I think. If millions of people think Katy Perry is the {censored}, then that's that. What I oppose is the idea that no one should be able to cash in, that that's alright, good even, because somehow it will be better for "music"

 

It's an art to create a recording that resonates with millions of people. It's great marketing that exposes it to those millions. It's a crying shame that it's become so easy to steal it, and that morally, that's acceptable to so many.

 

 

You think Katy Perry deserves millions like Paul does?

 

[kurdy]

I don’t think music will ever get back to anything. The business may change and morph into something we may or may not like, but in order to "go back", there will have to be the apocalypse, or someone will have to invent a time machine. As long as technology continues to advance, it will never again be like the pre-recorded music era, or the recorded music era, or any other era. People are too accustomed to being able to listen to any music they want, whenever they want, without having to go anywhere. There are also too many other things competing for people’s time and attention these days. Why go out to a sweaty, smelly bar or crowded coffee shop to see some unknown local band, when you can just sit at home and play video games, surf the web, watch Netflix, or the various other more convenient entertainment options available?

[daddymack]

well, kurdy, you have hit on an interesting point, and that is the line between modern entertainment and social interaction.

Historically, entertainment was 'spectacle' and the scope of such 'spectacle' made it a mass audience medium, an event for many to see...chariot races, gladiators, to boxing matches and concerts to films, which somehow co-existed with the early electric and electronic mass media, although the cinematic demise was often cited to be on the horizon due to inroads by television. But even going to a bar to see a band meant interacting socially. Now what happens? People are sequestered in rooms, alone. Oh, well, yes, you can do online team gaming, but is that really social interaction?

Sadly, I fear, we are losing the need for other people in our entertainment...and that is definitely damaging the music business...and art, and so on through our entire culture.

[richardmac]

I think that some elements of what you just said are very true, daddymack. But I'm not quite so doomsday about it, myself, probably because I am a nerd in a room for part of the day. I think people will always still crave "in person" social interaction, but I agree that there won't be as much of it in the future because there's so much that you can get right inside your home. I'd also argue that we're better off with all of this technology - I don't know a whole lot of people who would be willing to give up their Internet and their cable. Well, maybe cable, but not Internet. I don't know anyone except for songwriters who want to go back in time. I sure as hell don't.

 

kurdy did hit the nail on the head. But I think there will always be a place for live music. Music itself is more popular than ever, meaning more people are listening to more music than in the past. But in terms of selling music... I think there will always be a market for selling music, but people are delusional about what they can charge for it. People want to set the price to music, but the market determines the price. I can sell my CD for $10 all day long, but if people are not willing to pay it, I'm going to get 100% of nothing. At $5, though, I can sell them.

[kurdy]

 

Music itself is more popular than ever, meaning more people are listening to more music than in the past.

 

 

And that's what throws a wrench into the whole "music business is dead" theory. Maybe the format on which the music is being sold (compact discs) is dying, but the content is still very much in demand. People love their recorded music (something has to go on all those iPods). It's just that people have figured out how to get around paying for it. Even if you've never downloaded a song in your life, you can do a search on YouTube and listen to practically any song you want for free. It's extremely easy to get access to.

 

The main question that comes to my mind is: Is music currently so in demand in spite of the old model, or because of it? Something has to be creating all that demand, and it isn't all word of mouth. Should we really be so eager to see it die away completely? Personally, I have no plans to make music a full-time career, so I'm really not that invested in whether it can be sold or not. But what would bother me is if the demand for music stopped and people no longer cared about it anymore. Because where would that leave those who put so much of their time and effort into creating it? I suspect that perhaps the reason why there continues to be such a large demand for music is that some remnants of the old model are still intact.

[daddymack]

I wonder if there is an accurate way to determine wha tis actually being listened to as far as 'new' music versus back catalog (all recorded music going back 90 years). I would think this would help define the current value of modern music.

Could I live without the tech? Yes, because I have before. Hell I lived in a tent for a month once. I can do without a lot of things. I'm not exactly a Luddite, but I am also not a trend follower.

I think in may ways people are seduced by tech; do I need a mobile device to access the internet anywhere I am? No, I don't, nobody really does, but they are selling like hotcakes.

Do I need a 60" HD LED tv? No, but they are selling out in the stores. Do I need a GPS in my car telling me every turn? No, but they are becoming ubiquitous.

Bigger, better, faster...humans are stuck in this perpetual 'gatherer' mode...and the people who sell tech are well aware of that fact, right or wrong.

When the asteroid hits...what will be truly important?

I hope I will still have an acoustic guitar...and it won't have to say Taylor, Martin, Guild or Gibson on it...

[3shiftgtr]

Good posts all....and now for a bit about the conversation and who was chatting....

 

The chat was after an instrumental jazz/funk/fusion gig. The bassist has a music degree, the drummer doesn't. I of course do not. Myself and the bassist are fulltimers the drummer owns a construction supply place. The drummer and myself are older with older kids and the bassist is in his 20's. But both guys are MONSTER players....you know the type....bassist can cop jaco/victor etc and shred Giant Steps in all 12 at stupid tempos, and the drummer is a Will Kenedey freak and can cop the Weckl/Chambers thing.

 

Paraphrasing a long conversation, they both think "{censored} the music business. Good riddance" So I talk about making money to play music, and how is that possible if there is no music business?

 

"There wasn't one before, it was an illusion. People making records and getting screwed by the record company. That's not a business it's a {censored} factory. Famous vs. rich. Very few ever made enough money to get by, irregardless of the Beatles, Led Zepplin and the Police. But but the people who gave out the contracts all drove nice cars."

 

So now I find myself defending a business that has popped me a few good ones. I personally know one asshole that owns a boat that should have MY name on it. It's so bad, I should get a hummer from his wife weekly.

 

C'mon....not everyone is in it for the money. Plus, you both listened to records that inspired you and NO ONE made any money.....but why are you AGAINST artists making money.

 

"Cuz it shouldn't be about the money. It shouldn't be about the fame. It should be about the music."

 

Ok, got it. The music I (we) like ain't obviously about the fame. But what about the people who don't care about it as much as we do? Don't they deserve some music that they can relate to?

 

"Let them find it down the street at the local whatever. I'm sick of it being shoved down my throat in every commercial, on the radio, etc."

 

Ok, do you think that it should die naturally, or do you think that that bunch of silicone valley geeks that Moses Avalon keeps talking about, should kill it (like they have been trying to do).

 

"By any means necessary."

 

There have been a few people, Avalon included, that have said that all of the free/sharing sites are part of a plan to kill the music business so that all content is free all the time and the Google monster will, well, I dunno, eat us for lunch or something.

 

So you guys are fine with all musicians only being part time?

 

"Yes. And let the ones who truly do hit a nerve, make it naturally."

 

Hmmm. That's interesting. Naturally. Like on You tube and stuff right?

 

"Yes."

 

So I say.....Rebecca Black. That's what you'll get, is a {censored}ing world run by Rebecca Black and her parents money. That {censored} happened naturally. No action figure in the happy meal at McD's. What are you gonna do with the genius locked away in a room in some tundra in Russia? Call Lee Townsend? Who the {censored} is Lee Townsend (famous fusion producer) if he ain't makin no money? Why can't someone hear some poor ass musician and believe in what they are doing, give em some money to make a record, and promote them and help them sell a few records? Why is that always a {censored} all scenario? Isn't your rhetoric prejudiced to people making money with music as evil? Whether they are or not?

 

And this is interesting part. Don't know what to make of the reply:

 

"Look. There are hundreds of thousands of people writing songs, RIGHT NOW. Right this very second. The creativity of the universe is surging through hordes of people right this very second and they are documenting it. Some are better than anything the Beatles wrote, and some are un listenable. Whether it is promoted or not. Some is breaking ground like Coltrane did, and some is Kenny G. Whether it is heard or not. Art will happen. Some great art will be acknowledged and some will not. Some stuff will be heralded as great when it sucks, and vice versa. And you can't stop it, control it or change that. Money or no money. Contracts or no contracts. You Tube or no You Tube. Music will continue, and there will be a chosen few who choose to do it as a life. Some will make money and some won't. And who gives a {censored} if they are famous."

 

So their basic argument is "{censored} the music business cuz ART WILL HAPPEN."

 

I just....I could have said so much....but I just....I dunno.....they have a point. I'm not with them, but they have a point.

[Poker99]

Well... We will all die one day so why give a damn.

 

I have a point. But its kind of moot.

[daddymack]

taken to teh extreme though, that 'let it die' attitude is self-defeating. Humans are 'reward-based' entities. What happens when music is no longer a key social component? If there is no high-end reward, no monetary plum...then mediocrity will prevail.

No one will care, no one will strive. Manufacturers will scale back, as no one will want to spend their hard-earned money on gear they can't consider an investment, or see any purpose in owning except maybe to annoy the neighbors.

What will be left? High School Marching Bands?

No, there needs to be a music industry, some form of structured system that allows talented people to showcase their skills and get paid for it. But this will require a complete overhaul of not onlly the label system, but the entire industry as a whole, right down to the instrument case makers and the people who make reeds, picks, recording gear, etc...this will be way more than a new paradigm.

[richardmac]

Maybe art will happen, and great art will happen, but if no one hears it I would call that a tragedy. How many lives could have been enriched? The universe doesn't care, but I do. I want a mechanism to make it more likely that I'll hear the great stuff. And YouTube ain't it. So I disagree with them. They sound like they don't care about people being able to hear the best of the best. I do care, because it's in everyone's best interest. In that sense, their attitudes strike me as being very elitist and very selfish. Which is not uncommon among people who can play extremely extremely well. The fact is that being able to play extremely well does not art make. What can move someone is more likely going to be simpler music. Most elite level musicians I know love to hear themselves masturbate on their own instruments. Which is great, because very few other people want to hear it.

[Matximus]

 

Good posts all....and now for a bit about the conversation and who was chatting.... "There wasn't one before, it was an illusion. People making records and getting screwed by the record company. That's not a business it's a {censored} factory. Famous vs. rich. Very few ever made enough money to get by, irregardless of the Beatles, Led Zepplin and the Police. But but the people who gave out the contracts all drove nice cars." "Cuz it shouldn't be about the money. It shouldn't be about the fame. It should be about the music." Ok, got it. The music I (we) like ain't obviously about the fame. But what about the people who don't care about it as much as we do? Don't they deserve some music that they can relate to? So their basic argument is "{censored} the music business cuz ART WILL HAPPEN." I just....I could have said so much....but I just....I dunno.....they have a point. I'm not with them, but they have a point.

 

 

I'm with you: Only {censored}wads make a moral issue out of the principle of making money making art.

 

IF you have a chance to make good money doing something really cool - like performing or recording music - only a major league douchebag would decline that brass ring.

[3shiftgtr]

Well... We will all die one day so why give a damn. I have a point. But its kind of moot.

 

lulz and lulz some more.....

[Lemon Crush]

"Money and art don't mix"- Prince

[3shiftgtr]

 

I'm with you: Only {censored}wads make a moral issue out of the principle of making money making art. IF you have a chance to make good money doing something really cool - like performing or recording music - only a major league douchebag would decline that brass ring.

 

 

They certainly are not {censored}wads. They are really good human beings and monster musicians who are a BLAST to play with. Killer improvisors with huge ears, who are dedicated to the art of making extremely sophisticated and important music. They'd rather make money another way if they can't do it making the music they want.

 

And I absolutely disagree with making a moral issue out of making money making art. Thing is, they aren't against making money with honest art, they just felt the "old system" nurtured an attitude of "make money, {censored} art." which they felt promulgated a lot of dishonest art. Which I disagree with also cuz, all the records they respect and are influenced by are....well...records made by companies in the music business.

[kurdy]

 

So their basic argument is "{censored} the music business cuz ART WILL HAPPEN." I just....I could have said so much....but I just....I dunno.....they have a point. I'm not with them, but they have a point.

 

 

Music isn’t popular because it’s “art”. It’s popular because it’s entertainment. It’s fun. Art has nothing to do with the reason most people listen to it (except for musicians). Classical music, which is now considered “high art” was once considered popular music. Same with jazz. Now the majority of the population couldn't care less about those kinds of music, and it’s considered music for elitists. The scenario I don’t want to see in my lifetime is for all music to go the way of classical music and jazz—where it stops being for the people, and instead becomes a pastime for snobs. The day that happens is the day music stops being relevant. I think it is partly the push and publicity the music industry provides that keeps it a hot topic in our culture, in people’s minds, and lips. There is a lot going on in the current music business that needs to change, absolutely, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, either.

 

The only thing that makes me think maybe there’s still a chance for the survival of music post-biz, is the neuro-scientific theories out there that music is almost as old as mankind, and the human brain is wired to enjoy it (such as in that book “Your Brain On Music”) maybe it’s just one of those things people will always crave. Not sure I’d bet my money on that, though, but it's a nice thought.

[richardmac]

 

The scenario I don’t want to see in my lifetime is for all music to go the way of classical music and jazz—where it stops being for the people, and instead becomes a pastime for snobs.

 

 

I don't think that's a concern - more people are listening to more music now than in any other time in human history.

[hero]

People will always pay for something they want if they feel it's worth the money.

 

Why would a bar rather have a college kid (who paid the bar to let him sing along with his ipod) than have a band play and pay the band? Because there is no DEMAND for the bands music. The bar sees no difference between the kid and the band. And financially, the bar makes a good choice. They MAKE money with the kid and have to PAY the band when they could technically just turn on the jukebox and pay electricity. If the band is not in demand, why should anyone pay them? If the band IS in demand, then this is never a problem.

 

Bands with actual fans have no problem selling tickets to their shows and for many they sell out. There is a demand for their music which they supply. And most of these bands started out playing for free because at that time, they were not in demand.

 

The music "industry" has never changed... It's still supply and demand. How it's supplied to meet the demand has changed... but the industry hasn't. Customers pay for what they want to hear/see. Musicians try to make something the customers will pay for.

 

What I see as going away are mainly issues of the economic boom and then bust from the CD-internet era. There were middle men to the middle men and most of them have lost their jobs. People who were rolling in the money have had to cut back the frivolous expenses of the CD era and for many that means personnel. The need for the average musician to shell out tons of cash for a nice studio and expensive session players is gone (which means they had to be signed or have deep pockets). Hobby bands and cover bands are now competing with DJ's, jukeboxes, ipods and karaoke nights who make a better financial investment than paying a not in demand band. Being in a band without a fan base doesn't get you paid anymore unless the bar just feels like being nice and treats the band no different than other entertainment. Being a DJ or running the Karaoke night, or singing with an ipod might pay more or the same.

 

What I don't see going away is bands doing shows and getting paid by their FANS. Bands/musicians getting paid by venues who find it profitable to bring in a band/musician. Bands writing great music and presenting it in a medium that fits the era... and their FANS paying for it. Top artists still using top resources (studios, session players, etc.) and other artists utilizing similar resources (now affordable) within their means to produce a product for their FANS.

 

In the end it's still supply and demand and the form in which the music is presented may change... but the only people who will get paid anything worthwhile are those who are in demand.

 

It's just like baseball. You have your major league but you also have the minors... and a bunch of guys in a local rec league who paid to play. You judge the demand of a product by who pays who for the product. In the rec league... the players pay to play... In the minors the players get paid some... in the majors the players get paid alot. In music it's the same way but for some reason, musicians in the rec league want to get paid like their at least in the minors.