Using how much the music business sucks as justification for not being more successful

[Vito Corleone]

 

Really? Do you have something to back that up? I don't think that Charlie Patton cared much for what anyone in the Atlanta Symphony was doing, but neither do I think he criticized them and considered them to be taking work away from him.

 

Yes, I have my recollections of the era to back it up. What are you backing up YOUR claims with, BTW? But I'm not talking about people with lesser chops scorning those who have the real chops, but the other way around. "Real" musicians had great scorn for "lesser" musicians becoming successful and taking work from them. The big band era guys felt about the 4-piece 3-chord rock combos coming in and taking work the same way you seem to feel about DJs and the computer-and-loops guys.

 

 

 

 

 

But that's not what they do. They play their own kind of music. The problem, as I see it (and feel free to argue if you can back it up) is that that "own kind of music" doesn't have a very large audience of dedicated followers. Sure, there are zillions of downloads, but how many of those go to people who are fans of any particular artist, and not just peole who are entertained by music of that genre?

 

We're just discussing opinions and observations here. Why do I have to "back up" my claims but you don't? But that aside, I think these DIY home studio guys are taking the place of all those kids in my day who took piano or guitar lessons for a couple of years. Most then, as now, don't have real aspirations or determination to take it further. They aren't trying to get real work in the business. The difference is just that is seems like there is more of them because they are all on the same YouTube.

 

 

 

 

I've been dabbling in old time country, bluegrass, and traditional folk music for more than 50 years. I know lots of people I used to hang out and play music with back in the 60s and 70s who are considered superstars in their field today. Ever hear of Emmy Lou Harris or Mary Chapin Carpenter (I think I made her first studio recording)? The guys in the Seldom Scene used to come to parties at my house. I taught at the same music store as a couple of the Country Gentlemen (John Duffy of the Gentlemen was the string instrument repairman at that shop).

 

All of those folks started out playing bars and are now at the top of their field. Was it easy? No. All but a couple of them had day jobs until they were really in demand as musicians. And having a day job made it difficult to tour, which made it difficult to be more than a local success. But they made it. Sorry you didn't.

 

As I already said, I'm not sorry I didn't make it. I knew it was a huge long shot back then and I have no regrets or disappointments. I feel lucky to have achieved what I did achieve and lived the life in the business I lived. But beyond that, you're just helping me make my point here. You've been in the business for decades and out the probably thousands of musicians who aspired for great success you've worked with over the years, you know a handful who actually got there.

 

It's never been more than a huge longshot and, except for a very few very lucky folks, takes a LOT of work and dedication to achieve it. I don't think it's any harder today. But you're free to disagree with me on that point.

 

 

 

Agreed. That's why such a small percentage of the world's population is a big music star. But there are many who play music, make a little money, and are content at that level. That's a form of success, too.

 

Absolutely. As I already said, the problem with such discussions is we all define success and failure on our own terms. In all of life's endeavors. But I think for the sake of discussion here we can probably agree to talk about that level of "success" in the business that was almost certainly in most of our hopes and dreams at some point in all of our careers.

 

But yes, I hope that we ALL feel we have achieved a personal level of "success" as we each choose to define it. I certainly know I have.

[Vito Corleone]

 

 

There are DJs and there are DJs.

 

Of course there are. Just as there are bands and there are BANDS. But I think that part (just part) of the reason there are great DJs is that musicians opened that door for them by going through that period where musicians were much more about what THEY were doing and not focused enough on entertaining the audiences. Not that there isn't a place for those sorts of musicians and not that many aren't creating great music, but the whole "I'm an artist and either you love me and my music for what it is and for the message I'm trying to convey or you don't and you can leave" thing has it's limits when you're trying to fill a 500 seat nightclub at $15 a person with young folks looking for a hip scene where they can hang out with other likeminded young folks and hopefully hook up.

 

So DJs were more than happy and able to fill in that void that live bands left behind. But, especially at a lower price point, DJs can offer a more consistent entertainment experience. So it makes sense that DJs would dominate that segment of the market. But bands need to step up their game if they want people to once again have a great appreciation for live music. There has no doubt been many, many factors that have led to decline of live music. Most are things the musicians can not control. But over those things they DO have control over? I think they could regain a large chunk of that market by stepping it up and not letting the DJs beat them at their own game.

 

Kids are going to go to where the happening scene is. And if it's happening enough, they'll even be willing to pay a cover to get in. Whether that involves live music or not is kind of incidental. I think too many musicians lost sight of that and started thinking it was all about them and not that they were just one part of the scene.

 

But as someone else said, the business has changed in that musicians now have to be their own recording engineers and gig promoters and DJs and computer programmers and everything else if they want to be able to find a competitive niche for themselves. Much as in the same way that Beethoven would have thought you were nuts if you told him that in the future the most successful musicians would be those who write their own music AND lyrics AND sing their own songs AND play the instruments. Sometimes more than one instrument.

 

The paradigms are constantly changing and evolving. It isn't 1980 anymore. I'm OK with that. While I'm nostalgic for past eras, at the same time I'm also kind of glad that the past is in the past. We don't need another Beatles. The one we had was good enough. Leave me to my memories and let the kids have the future.

 

I hope they do well with it.

[Vito Corleone]

There's a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy, too. You can make the argument that there aren't that many compelling bands, but if there's no place to play, what's the incentive? I guarantee I could put together a kickass band with a great set inside of two months. Maybe the public would love it and flip out, maybe they'd throw tomatoes but I'll never find out because I can't justify the time required to put it together unless it went mega-big...which we all know is highly unlikely (especially because I don't have blond hair and big breasts, LOL). There isn't that local infrastructure where we could play, and if people dug it, we'd at least break even.

The live music scene has degraded to such a point that it would need to be remade from the ground up. But most eras in music began with musicians and bands working where there was no viable infrastructure. Every genre has stories about how the early guys had to play for free for audiences that threw tomatoes.

 

But as far as your kickass band goes? Yeah, I could probably put together one in two months too. Problem is, I'm old and so are all my kickass musician friends so noone much would care. Which also isn't anything new. When I was younger I was playing 5 nights a week to packed rooms while I was swinging my long locks of hair around on stage. The older (and usually much more technically proficient) musicians I knew?

 

Not so much. They were usually playing oldies in a corner bar somewhere for a couple hundred bucks or maybe making better money playing a wedding somewhere.

 

The difference, of course, is that there aren't the young kids packing rooms five nights a week anymore. But that's to them to figure out how to connect with audiences and re-create such a scene (if they want to do that.) Maybe it will come back someday. Maybe it's gone for good. Who knows. But I certainly think it COULD come back. There's no fundamental reason why it couldn't. Somebody just has to come up with a live music-related product that people want to see. That's up to the artists to figure out. Can't blame the audiences for that.

 

I like your point that there's too much recorded music now and it's all available 24/7. I agree this has contributed to the devaluation of recorded music in the minds of the consumer. Which is why I continue to argue that I think if music is to survive as a commercial endeavor, it will be in the form of live entertainment that can't be downloaded on demand. It has to become an EVENT that people want to attend.

 

I'm confident some group of enterprising and talented and motivated young musicians will figure that out someday. Hopefully I'll personally like what they are doing--whatever that may end up being. But if I don't like it, that's OK too.

[onelife]

What would Beethoven or Mozart do with a MacBook, some software synths and a DAW?

 

I'm guessing it would be along the lines of what Hendrix did with a Stratocaster.

[Anderton]

 

And that's my entire point. It's NEVER been easy to make it. This whole thread is a bunch of older guys who never fully "made it" complaining that it's harder to make it today. Really? It was EASIER back then? I guess I was so busy struggling and not making it that I didn't notice..

 

Not the whole thread. My point isn't about "making it," but about being able to support yourself by playing music, and I'm referring to people of all ages and musical styles. It was definitely easier back in the 60s. Music was hot, a valued commodity, and was the soundtrack to a profound societal change. There was no satellite TV, no video games, no internet, and FM radio had just broken free to provide a venue for more experimental music. There was a demand for music due in part to scarcity, and when there's demand, there's a need for supply. When there's scarcity, the value of the supply increases.

 

I don't see that same kind of demand these days, for multiple reasons. I don't think my premise has anything to do with nostalgia or believing there was a "good ol' days." It has to do with economic and social reality. I don't think the results wrought by those changes are a matter of opinion, but are quantifiable..

[Vito Corleone]

but about being able to support yourself by playing music' date=' and I'm referring to people of all ages and musical styles. It was definitely easier back in the 60s.[/quote']

 

That may be true. But I also think the definitions of "playing music" have changed. Most of the people on this forum who make a living playing music seem to be doing so as a solo or duo. That didn't really exist much during the 60s. The technology of being able to play to tracks created great demand for that sort of performance.

 

And working with music in fields that require a musical ear and talent have broadened as well it seems. A couple of friends of mine I started out playing music with in the 80s went on to great success after forming a company that does a lot of video game soundtracks and editing. They create most of the music tracks for the Guitar Hero games. And they do a lot of sounds for various apps and the like. And I see they just recently were hired to be the in-house sound design team for Facebook. So I guess THEY'VE "made it"! No one will ever know their names though. But every kid who plays Guitar Hero has heard their "cover band".

 

In many ways, it's seems like I hear more "music" than ever before. Every gadget and device in the world seems to make noises and buzzes and play melodies and sing songs and SOMEBODY has to be responsible for all that stuff?

 

Yeah, the in-house band days are gone. At least for now. The Holiday Inn circuit doesn't really exist anymore. Although there are still gigs with cruise ships and stuff like that. And "playing music" doesn't necessarily mean learning chords and licks on a guitar anymore. But I think there's probably still some avenues available for those who desire to have careers using their musical inclinations.

 

 

[MikeRivers]

 

"Real" musicians had great scorn for "lesser" musicians becoming successful and taking work from them. The big band era guys felt about the 4-piece 3-chord rock combos coming in and taking work the same way you seem to feel about DJs and the computer-and-loops guys.

 

Oh, you mean that. Did it occur to you that there might just be a fresh audience for the newer music performed by a rock combo when the big band is still playing the same old standards? And also, that there might be more venues where a small combo can perform which can't accommodate a big band?

 

I think that today there may be a bigger audience for DJs and loops-and-bloops than there is for rock combos that cover pop songs. The difference, though, is that people spent money to buy records and go to shows when the small rock combos were new and exciting. Everybody expects to get DJ and electronica music for free, or at least through a system that pays the artist very little. Don't you think that makes it harder for these guys - of which there are many more heads to count than there are bands - to make a living from their music?

 

Why do I have to "back up" my claims but you don't?

 

I've backed up a few of my observations with people who I know and with whom I have played music non-professionally. I'll concede that these may not be household names to you. We all have different tastes.

 

I think these DIY home studio guys are taking the place of all those kids in my day who took piano or guitar lessons for a couple of years. Most then, as now, don't have real aspirations or determination to take it further. They aren't trying to get real work in the business. The difference is just that is seems like there is more of them because they are all on the same YouTube.

 

Today, that's almost surely more rewarding than performing at a recital for the parents of all the students. Few 12 year old piano students aspire to become concert pianists or even lounge lizards, but they might enjoy a little popularity among their friends because of their musica skills. They might even join a band and have some fun and make a little money. But on YouTube, everyone is on a level playing field, and it's a huge one. Nobody gets chicks for putting their songs on YouTube. Or maybe they do.

 

As I already said, I'm not sorry I didn't make it. I knew it was a huge long shot back then and I have no regrets or disappointments. . . . . . You've been in the business for decades and out the probably thousands of musicians who aspired for great success you've worked with over the years, you know a handful who actually got there.

 

"Huge long shot" suggests luck, and it may appear that there's some luck involved in "making it." But you can't just buy a lottery ticket to get a chance at being a music success. As we have both said, it takes a lot of work, too, much of it not directly involved in picking strings or writing songs. And with all of the distractions today, I think it's more difficult for an individual to be sufficiently focused on a music career than it was in the past. We don't have "artist development" any more to help those who show some promise, they have to do it on their own. And in the end, the final product is wholesaled to people who have grown up not paying retail.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Oh, you mean that. Did it occur to you that there might just be a fresh audience for the newer music performed by a rock combo when the big band is still playing the same old standards? And also, that there might be more venues where a small combo can perform which can't accommodate a big band?

 

There are only so many spots on the Top 40 chart and on a radio stations rotation. A lot of older clubs switched formats. Then, as now, people stopped going out to nightclubs as they got older and the clubs switched to cater to the younger people who did go out. Sure, the market expanded somewhat, but older bands also DID get squeezed out of the marketplace by the newer ones. Or at least it felt that way to the older musicians. Resentment most certainly DID exist. Times change. Technology changes. Musical tastes change. Onward and ever onward.

 

I think that today there may be a bigger audience for DJs and loops-and-bloops than there is for rock combos that cover pop songs. The difference, though, is that people spent money to buy records and go to shows when the small rock combos were new and exciting. Everybody expects to get DJ and electronica music for free, or at least through a system that pays the artist very little. Don't you think that makes it harder for these guys - of which there are many more heads to count than there are bands - to make a living from their music?

 

The top DJ clubs charge big covers. People pay extra to see a big name DJ perform. But your key phrase here is "were new and exciting". Live music performed by a rock band stopped being exciting quite a while ago. It's basically performed in the same format that bands were doing 50 years ago. Hard for a kid with a guitar and an amp today to be as exciting as Hendrix or Van Halen were. Which is what I meant about bands needing to step it up. Think about how much a good, state of the art DJ performance has evolved over the last 30 years. Now think about how much a good, state of the art rock band performance has not. You don't think THAT has something to do with why people don't want to pay money to see live music?

 

 

I've backed up a few of my observations with people who I know and with whom I have played music non-professionally. I'll concede that these may not be household names to you. We all have different tastes.

 

You lost me. You named a handful of people (whom I am all familiar with) who you've worked with or been friends with over the years who went on to good success. I know people too. Like you, a small handful of the probably thousands of professional and semi-professional musicians I've known over the years who had big aspirations. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make that I wasn't making as well?

 

 

Today, that's almost surely more rewarding than performing at a recital for the parents of all the students. Few 12 year old piano students aspire to become concert pianists or even lounge lizards, but they might enjoy a little popularity among their friends because of their musica skills. They might even join a band and have some fun and make a little money. But on YouTube, everyone is on a level playing field, and it's a huge one. Nobody gets chicks for putting their songs on YouTube. Or maybe they do.

 

I don't know. I sometimes wonder how my musical path would have been different were I born today rather than in 1961. No doubt I would have been just as musically inclined at a very early age. That was something I was born with. Would I have taken piano lessons? Guitar lessons? Or would my fascination with recorded music had me fooling around with doing DJ and looping type stuff more? Would I have started recording my own compositions and multi-tracking at an early age---something which was impossible for me to do when I was young until I had the money and ability to enter a real recording studio when I was 18? Hard to say. No doubt the technology and commercial tastes of the public would have had a big effect on me just as it being a kid in the 60s and 70s. When I was a kid in the early 70s I wanted to be Elton John. Being a kid in the early 10s? Who knows?

 

 

"Huge long shot" suggests luck, and it may appear that there's some luck involved in "making it." But you can't just buy a lottery ticket to get a chance at being a music success. As we have both said, it takes a lot of work, too, much of it not directly involved in picking strings or writing songs.

I believe there is a GREAT amount of luck involved in "making it". There's always been more talent than available recording contracts. Even with great songs and great talent and a great band, at some point it comes down to being in the right place at the right time with the right sound and the right song. I imagine that some people are SO talented that they'd eventually make it regardless. Then again...who knows? The Beatles were rejected by Decca the first time around. Had Parlophone rejected them on their 2nd try, maybe they'd have given up and we'd never have had all those songs and recordings. Or maybe some things just HAVE to be in this world?

 

Then again, that's The Beatles. But for every, say, Herman's Hermits or Warrant there are probably a 1000 others who were equally talented who just as easily could have filled that spot on the charts and in musical history with similar songs.

And with all of the distractions today, I think it's more difficult for an individual to be sufficiently focused on a music career than it was in the past. We don't have "artist development" any more to help those who show some promise, they have to do it on their own. And in the end, the final product is wholesaled to people who have grown up not paying retail.

 

And there's the final analysis. I agree with that. We're certainly at a crossroads in this business. "Making it" in 2030 probably isn't going to look much at all like making it in 1980. Musicians will have to find new ways to monetize what they do. It may not involve picking up a guitar, coming up with some words and a melody, working up an arrangement with a 'band' and recording them at all. Or it may involve some of that and a lot of other things as well. But I am still 100% optimistic that there WILL be a future for a music business. Music is just too important both to those compelled to create and perform it and those who want to listen to it.

 

Yes, the laws of supply and demand and how technology has changed things have maybe completed ended the "Make a recording and sell it" business model. That's OK though. Music and musicians existed long before the phonograph was invented. They'll exist long after its demise as well.

[MikeRivers]

You've about worn me out arguing about what the public will listen to and pay for. It's probably all in back issues of Billborad Magazine if anyone wants to look it up. Tastes change, opportunities change, budgets change. That's life.

 

You and I agree that there's only room for a certain number of "top artists." I postulate that this number hasn't changed significantly over the last 50 years. But what has changed is the number of categories in which an artist can have a string of big hits (hence sustaining his "making it" status). Crooners, rock combos, and bubble gum music were making big bucks in the 60s, but if you didn't fall into one of those categories, you might have a decent income, but you weren't in the top artist class - there's only so many that can make it there and they'll come from the biggest-selling genres.

 

Today, however, you can look at it the same way, with just a few top selling categories, or you can expand the categories because there are so many more fairly densely populated categories than there were in the 60s. Either way, you have a lot more people playing the game, but only about the same number who will fit in that room at the top.

 

If you don't make the "right' kind of music, no matter how good you are in your genre or category, you won't be one of the top artists.

 

We're certainly at a crossroads in this business. "Making it" in 2030 probably isn't going to look much at all like making it in 1980. Musicians will have to find new ways to monetize what they do.

 

This is the key, and it's not just limited to musicians. Close to home, recording engineers have become mastering engineers because:

1 - People can't or don't want to pay studio prices when they can do it at home

2- Their work-at-home needs some professional tuning-up in order to sound professional

3 - A studio engineer has the tools and presumably skills that, when he learns more about what's needed in the final product, he can apply and start making money again.

 

Similarly a musician with a bent for writing can stop dreaming of recording a big hit, and then another, then another, and start learning how to sell his music to a TV series or film. He probably has all the musical chops he needs, but he needs to learn how to interact with a different business. But he won't be making hundreds of thousands of dollars for each song he places, and his name won't be as common as Paul McCartney. But he'll be "making it" in the music business if he has a good product and is successful in selling it.

 

Just like any other business.

 

 

 

[blue2blue]

So as not to hijack the mice thread...

 

 

 

 

I do think [...]

 

 

I need an excuse which is neither seasonal nor tied to business cycles -- a perennial, if you will.

 

[sventvkg]

So as not to hijack the mice thread...

 

 

 

 

I do think that's an oversimplification, because what constitutes "successful" doesn't necessarily mean being a big star. I've been around long enough to remember when the music business had a "middle class." You could support yourself with music without having to be a star. There were strong local music scenes that supported their own, similarly to how communities support local sports teams. The music business simply mirrors society as a whole, which has witnessed a major transfer of wealth out of the middle class, thus shrinking it. The "music business middle class" has become much smaller as well.

 

Even when the music business was in its prime, it was very difficult to become rich and famous. However that was only a small sliver of what could be considered success, because it was possible to support yourself and in many cases, quite comfortably. I knew a musician in the 80s who played only local bars around Vancouver. He had a super-entertaining act, and he made over $120,000 a year in 1980s dollars. By my standards, he was successful - he was making a good living doing what he wanted, while entertaining people, constantly changing up his act to keep it fresh, and making audiences happy. I don't know how he's doing these days, but I suspect the same opportunities to play simply aren't there.

 

Did he change, or the music industry? Neither. The distribution of wealth changed, and that has impacted the music business as much as it has impacted every element of society. That's what really sucks; the music industry is just one of many innocent bystanders. There may still be some venues for him because he already established a career back when it was much easier, but not for someone coming up and trying to duplicate his success. If there's no place to play, there's no way to make money doing live performance..

 

 

 

 

My bandleader makes 6 figures running a 75% wedding 25% private events band. I know people who make that with tribute bands. I have 3 tribute and one wedding/corporate events bands in the works and will work more up as each ramps up. There are plenty of good paying opportunities in the music business. As far as the Bar scene goes it's been the lowest rung and worst paying aspect for over 20 years now. Moreover the bar is very very low and there are more really crappy to mediocre players playing that scene. As you get up into the $10K and over a night corporate show bands the quality is consistent with major artists. IF you're really talented you CAN make a living in this business if you just use your head. Having a career based on your own music is another matter altogether which consists of a good deal of LUCK.

 

As far as the business being a reflection of our society that's certainly true and we as performers and music businessmen have to adapt to the changing culture and environment or we'll simple be left behind.

[MikeRivers]

 

 

I have 3 tribute and one wedding/corporate events bands in the works and will work more up as each ramps up.

 

Aha! So you need three or more jobs to keep ahead in the music business! That's tough!

 

As you get up into the $10K and over a night corporate show bands the quality is consistent with major artists.

 

But there aren't many of those, which, I suppose is why they can get $10K for a gig.

[sventvkg]

 

Aha! So you need three or more jobs to keep ahead in the music business! That's tough!

 

 

 

But there aren't many of those, which, I suppose is why they can get $10K for a gig.

 

None of them are full time jobs and once they get established after a few years they take on a life of their own with a minimum of promotions and effort.

 

There are 1000's of Corporate bands out there in that market. Certainly more than big established artists on the circuit. Again, it takes time and effort not to mention you have to have various skill sets not only on your instrument but as a businessman and promo person to build this type of career.

 

Moreover there are zillions and zillions of wedding bands who make $5K a pop...Where the band owner could easily make over a couple grand a show. I know mine do.

[Folder]

Seems to be a couple of topics in this thread.

 

As far as DJs and live music are concerned I don't think I've ever paid to see DJ in my life and the last cover band I paid to see was probably about thirty years ago. There has always been a thriving original music scene in my area and that's what I've mostly always been drawn to.

 

I'm more interested in how the music business has changed for original music so that is what I'll comment on.

 

Unlike what Craig is seeing, where I live there are still a lot of places to play live music. But I very much agree with Craig's assessment that there seems to be a smaller "music business middle class" or what I would refer to as "mid-level artists".

 

When I was in high school a musician used to live across the street from me. His band was by no means a house-hold name but they got a good bit of local radio airplay and toured nationally. They all had decent cars and decent homes but I don't think any of them were what we might call rich today. Of course to us kids in the neighborhood they were all rock stars. He once told me that their manager told them that they had to sell at least 250,000 copies of each album to basically break even and keep the band together and they were together for about seven years I think. But they never sold enough to have a gold album.

 

These days I often see very talented original artists playing small clubs and coffee shops in front of maybe thirty people or so. They might have a pretty big fan base on-line but I think most also have day jobs.

 

 

I think philboking pretty much sums up what I'm seeing with todays "mid-level" artists:

 

It is a new world, that's for sure.

 

There is a market for people creating and performing great music, but a lot more is required. Since the labels are basically gone, except for specialty genres, a musician has to do more than create great arrangements and perform them exceptionally well. They also have to promote, advertise, record, produce, engineer, mix, master, print/package/sell their own CDs, set up their own gigs, teach somebody to operate their PA and then teach them to listen while they do it, get somebody to collect the gate, get somebody to go around with the tip jar, get somebody to capture performances on video for them, and the list could go on and on.

 

IMHO, not many people are up to the task of doing 1/10th of this stuff on a level that could earn them a minimum wage living. Those who do have my respect and awe, but no envy....

 

The way I see it the music business has been corporatized. The big three labels - Warner, Sony and Universal in cahoots with the media giants like Cumulus, Cox and Clear channel has given us less variety and less quality.

[sventvkg]

Seems to be a couple of topics in this thread.

 

As far as DJs and live music are concerned I don't think I've ever paid to see DJ in my life and the last cover band I paid to see was probably about thirty years ago. There has always been a thriving original music scene in my area and that's what I've mostly always been drawn to.

 

I'm more interested in how the music business has changed for original music so that is what I'll comment on.

 

Unlike what Craig is seeing, where I live there are still a lot of places to play live music. But I very much agree with Craig's assessment that there seems to be a smaller "music business middle class" or what I would refer to as "mid-level artists".

 

When I was in high school a musician used to live across the street from me. His band was by no means a house-hold name but they got a good bit of local radio airplay and toured nationally. They all had decent cars and decent homes but I don't think any of them were what we might call rich today. Of course to us kids in the neighborhood they were all rock stars. He once told me that their manager told them that they had to sell at least 250,000 copies of each album to basically break even and keep the band together and they were together for about seven years I think. But they never sold enough to have a gold album.

 

These days I often see very talented original artists playing small clubs and coffee shops in front of maybe thirty people or so. They might have a pretty big fan base on-line but I think most also have day jobs.

 

 

I think philboking pretty much sums up what I'm seeing with todays "mid-level" artists:

 

 

 

The way I see it the music business has been corporatized. The big three labels - Warner, Sony and Universal in cahoots with the media giants like Cumulus, Cox and Clear channel has given us less variety and less quality.

 

 

Original Music? Other than a few exceptions like DMB, Hootie, Zach Brown, etc most original bands I have ever known never made any money until they broke......So i'm confused?? The VAST majority have NEVER made a living in this business.

[Folder]

 

 

Original Music? Other than a few exceptions like DMB, Hootie, Zach Brown, etc most original bands I have ever known never made any money until they broke......So i'm confused?? The VAST majority have NEVER made a living in this business.

 

Well I don't know what you mean by making money. But lots of people used to make a living making original music. Many still do.

[sventvkg]

 

Well I don't know what you mean by making money. But lots of people used to make a living making original music. Many still do.

 

 

Who? Where? I never met or heard of more than a handful in any market I've lived in which has been quite a few. I have to think that 99.99999% of orginal musicians out there actively trying to make something happen never make enough money to make a living. I've been at this game a long time and my network is vast and again, I don't know any other than the few that made it big. Not too many in the middle class. Some friends in the 90's were able to make a living for a few years and they made a good run. Almost got the record deal etc. When they didn't they fractured which is I think all too common.

[Folder]

 

 

Who? Where? I never met or heard of more than a handful in any market I've lived in which has been quite a few. I have to think that 99.99999% of orginal musicians out there actively trying to make something happen never make enough money to make a living. I've been at this game a long time and my network is vast and again, I don't know any other than the few that made it big. Not too many in the middle class. Some friends in the 90's were able to make a living for a few years and they made a good run. Almost got the record deal etc. When they didn't they fractured which is I think all too common.

 

Well the band that I was referring to from when I was in high school was an instrumental rock band called the Dixie Dregs. They put out six albums over about seven years and they used to get a good bit of regional radio airplay over that time. They played anywhere from 100 seat bars to 4000 seat theaters and I even saw them in front of 60 thousand people at a rock festival once.

 

And yes they DID made a living playing original music during their existence.

 

I could name dozens if not hundreds of bands from my "market" that have made a living playing original music over the last forty years or so. I don't know what "market" you are in and again I don't know what you mean by "making money" but as Craig said in his opening statement:

 

I've been around long enough to remember when the music business had a "middle class." You could support yourself with music without having to be a star.

 

[Vito Corleone]

Dozens if not hundreds over 40 years isn't exactly a huge amount over the thousands and thousands who have attempted to do so over that same time period. Remembering every band you can ever think of who made a living playing originals and comparing it to the number who do so right as this minute isn't exactly a similar comparison.

 

Yes, the Dregs were able to make a living playing originals by putting it 7 albums with a major label or two and touring constantly. I reckon that any band who did the same thing would also make a living today. Question is--is it harder for a musician to get to that level that it used to be?

 

. Like Sventkg says, there are still good livings to be made this business. How you need to go about it has changed somewhat however. But can't the same thing be said about almost any business? Especially those involving art and technology?

[sventvkg]

 

Well I don't know what you mean by making money. But lots of people used to make a living making original music. Many

 

What I mean by making Money is money enough to live..Making a living..solely from their original music...Probably as rare as a 3 armed elf, even then. Almost unheard of now. It's pipe dream. YES some will attain it, more power to them!!!

 

The VAST majority of the middle class of the music business back when there was one, were guys like Craig mentioned back in the day when there were week long road gigs all over the country. THAT went away 25 years ago. Now most of the people I know making a living in bars are soloists, maybe with some band stuff thrown in...And they are cover gigs, NOT original gigs. Sure some play some originals and sell records like I always did. UNSIGNED original bands making a living..enough to live on, was and is exceedingly rare. I know, believe me. I've never had a day job and never will.

[AJ6stringsting]

 

Well, consider "downsizing" and offshoring of jobs to where there's cheap labor - we have corrolaries in your example of DJs and canned music. DJs take up less space and cost less money (unless you're Carl Cox or whatever), and canned music is like cheap labor. I'm not sure it's necessarily what the public wants, but it's what they're going to get. Just like they're going to get less service and cheaper (in all senses of the word) goods.

 

The one exception is DJs who really have the club thing down, are attractions, and people do want to see them. They get paid a little more but even for these DJs, there are fewer clubs and fewer opportunities.

 

There's a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy, too. You can make the argument that there aren't that many compelling bands, but if there's no place to play, what's the incentive? I guarantee I could put together a kickass band with a great set inside of two months. Maybe the public would love it and flip out, maybe they'd throw tomatoes but I'll never find out because I can't justify the time required to put it together unless it went mega-big...which we all know is highly unlikely (especially because I don't have blond hair and big breasts, LOL). There isn't that local infrastructure where we could play, and if people dug it, we'd at least break even.

 

 

 

I agree, but it's not just a problem for the players...the industry downturn, and there is one, is a problem for the listeners. too. Sure, some people will blame the industry for a fundamental lack of talent, and also, the competition is stiffer than ever because all recorded music since the dawn of time is available 24/7. But the problem for listeners is that there are talented people who COULD draw a crowd, but there's no place to draw them to.

 

In the course of mastering hundreds of tracks from wannabes and pros alike, it's true that many recordings were average. But every now and then something would come along where I'd gladly drive 100 miles and pay $50 to see that act. There IS some really good music out there and while the musicians might not be whining about not making it, I'm whining about not being able to see them play anywhere.

 

 

 

Of course, music is for enjoyment. Not every one who skis expects to go to the Olympics. All I'm saying is it used to be a lot easier to at least get a shor to see if you had it in you or not. Maybe you'd fail, or maybe you'd fly, but at least you had a chance to try. Also remember that quite a few bands were "successful amateurs," but could at least support themselves during the years they honed their craft and became professionals.

 

At this point I don't care about "making it big," I had what I could handle at a time that was conducive to being a musician. I'm doing fine, and I still love doing music - especially because there's no pressure and I can do anything I want on whatever schedule I want. But I do miss being able to see live music from "undiscovered" bands, who build up a following over time, get better and better, and eventually break out nationally. Maybe it's out there and I'm just not seeing it...but jeez, back in Cologne in the late 90s you could go to a dozen clubs, all with great DJs (I mean club DJs with real talent, not guys playing Debbie Boone at weddings), all within walking distance and all packed. I loved playing at those places, and I loved listening to the bands and DJs too.

 

 

Trickle Down / Voodoo Economics .... whizzed on the musician. Epiphany , struck me when you made that statement of the "middle class musician" being bamboozled . Even those at the top had evil managers, classic case, Jimi Hendrix and his crooked manager Michael Jeffries.

Like in the late 1980's Sunset Strip scene, pay per play killed the music scene and nepotism killed the scene there. Promoters were promoting "cookie cutter bands", while new talent was stifled and kept out .

With the internet beating up the major labels ..... sounds like Karma to me. After all the years the industry ripped off good / talented songwriters and musicians, seems like the roosters have come home to roost.

I've been in bands that did covers, if I did covers from Yngwie Malmsteen to Neil Young .... I would do it note for note, out of the love and respect for the original artist.

When I was a traveling musician. I didn't care about being on Mtv, all that mattered was playing live on that stage, hoping the crowd loved and would come back again ..... and they would

I remember, pickuping the guitar in the mid-late 1970's, people used to tell me and my garage band buddies, " Playing UFO, Black Sabbath, Thin Lizzy, AC-DC, Aerosmith, Pat Travers or any Rock music, is a waste of time, because Disco is killing Rock n Roll and it will never come back".

Lo and behold, AC-DC get more popular, Rush was slugging it on the airwaves, Van Halen exploded, igniting Rock / Metal guitar playing to new heights , Judas Priest opened the door and Ozzy and Randy Rhoads brought back Metal to new playing/ compositional heights.

Never say never.

Right now D.J.'s and Karaoke are starting to fade away. People are going to want to watch and band go up and play again, especially if the band is talented

[AJ6stringsting]

Depends in the area you play in. Bigger cities, like having people play original music. Smaller towns and cities, love lots of covers.

[AJ6stringsting]

You gotta be in love with music ....

[Folder]

Dozens if not hundreds over 40 years isn't exactly a huge amount over the thousands and thousands who have attempted to do so over that same time period. Remembering every band you can ever think of who made a living playing originals and comparing it to the number who do so right as this minute isn't exactly a similar comparison.

 

 

Sventkg said: Original Music? Other than a few exceptions like DMB, Hootie, Zach Brown, etc most original bands I have ever known never made any money until they broke......So i'm confused??

 

There may be thousands of bands who don't make a living for everyone who does but he never really said what he meant by making money and he implied that you either were a huge superstar like DMB, Hootie, Zach Brown, or you were flat broke. I was commenting on "mid-level" artists.

 

He also said "in any market I've lived in which has been quite a few". Obviously I think it would be much easier to make a living playing original music in a city of 6 million people than a small town.

 

AJ6stringsting says: Depends in the area you play in. Bigger cities, like having people play original music. Smaller towns and cities, love lots of covers.

 

Question is--is it harder for a musician to get to that level that it used to be?

.

Yeah that's the question. Like Craig said at one time "You could support yourself with music without having to be a star." I think many people would argue that it's harder now for all the various reason mentioned in this and other threads.

 

 

Like Sventkg says, there are still good livings to be made this business. How you need to go about it has changed somewhat however. But can't the same thing be said about almost any business? Especially those involving art and technology?

 

Yeah the old model is pretty much gone.

There may still be good livings to be made for the superstars but like Philbo said: "Since the labels are basically gone" I think it has become harder for the mid-level artists because they are all on their own now.

[Folder]

 

 

What I mean by making Money is money enough to live..Making a living..solely from their original music...Probably as rare as a 3 armed elf, even then. Almost unheard of now. It's pipe dream. YES some will attain it, more power to them!!!

 

 

Well when I think of the music business I think of people who write perform and record their own music. And I prefaced my first post by saying that I was referring to original music. And yes I agree that the majority of musicians don't make a living with their music but I would bet it's the same for most cover musicians as well.

 

 

The VAST majority of the middle class of the music business back when there was one, were guys like Craig mentioned back in the day when there were week long road gigs all over the country. THAT went away 25 years ago.

 

 

Yeah I agree that the VAST majority of the middle class music business went away. That was my point to begin with. But I don't think it was 25 years ago. Seems to me the industry started really consolidating about 15 years ago. Also the Internet really started getting going about 15 years ago as well.

 

Now most of the people I know making a living in bars are soloists, maybe with some band stuff thrown in...And they are cover gigs, NOT original gigs. Sure some play some originals and sell records like I always did. UNSIGNED original bands making a living..enough to live on, was and is exceedingly rare. I know, believe me. I've never had a day job and never will.

 

Well most of the people I know play original music. I don't think many of them are making a living at it though.