Jump to content

Are the days of independent CD releases over?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

you're simply thinking about it in an old paradigm that doesn't exist anymore.

 

.....................

 

Maybe 10 years ago, for bands of a certain size. Nowadays, all that happens online.

 

 

And for folks who don't have internet, or internet that is not capable of streaming? Being connected via the internet is nice, but when you are in 'fly-over country' the Internet is not a viable option. I use to live in DC and had fiberoptic unlimited connection. Now in Alabama on a copper line with 10 up and 3 down - on a good day. Streaming audio or video is not really an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 

And for folks who don't have internet, or internet that is not capable of streaming? Being connected via the internet is nice, but when you are in 'fly-over country' the Internet is not a viable option. I use to live in DC and had fiberoptic unlimited connection. Now in Alabama on a copper line with 10 up and 3 down - on a good day. Streaming audio or video is not really an option.

 

 

then download music (vs streaming), buy CD's when you can find 'em, and upgrade your service when and if you can.

 

 

Stats:

 

100% of Alabamians have access to mobile broadband.

 

83% of Alabamians have access to wired broadband 25mbps or faster.

 

the statewide average speed in Alabama is 34mbps.

 

 

https://broadbandnow.com/Alabama

 

 

:music005:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

the question that Phil asked was essentially how do fans connect with you and consume your music after the show. I'm answering that -- that's all online now, via social media, Youtube, instagram, streaming, etc.

 

Oh, OK. Now I get it. It's just about connecting and consuming, not about how that might benefit the artist. It can surely boost his ego, but there's evidence that this sort of exposure doesn't yield any significant income. There's nothing wrong with giving away your music, but that's for hobbyists, not for those hoping to develop a career around music.

 

As far as making money, as others are posting in this thread, income streams have shifted. An online presence connects you with those new streams.

 

So you're suggesting that being active on Instagram will get your music streamed on Pandora - for which you might get enough money to pay for a cup of coffee at McDonalds a couple of times a year? BFD!

 

And if you're a hobbyist, income is irrelevant. Just make music for the pleasure.

 

Social media is perfect for that.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

Holy crud, gentlemen, you can't do BOTH? This isn't an either/or proposition.

 

Of course you can, and you should do both. But the reality is that most people making music and sharing it on social media platforms aren't performing before live audiences and therefore don't have the opportunity to trade CDs for money. There's no reason why you can't offer CDs for sale to your on-line audience, but the theme here seems to be that people don't want CDs, they just want streams or other on-line sources for their music, and custom is not to pay enough for that to provide any noticeable income to the artist - except for the small handful (as there always was) of "major" artists.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

then download music (vs streaming), buy CD's when you can find 'em, and upgrade your service when and if you can.

 

 

Stats:

 

100% of Alabamians have access to mobile broadband.

 

83% of Alabamians have access to wired broadband 25mbps or faster.

 

the statewide average speed in Alabama is 34mbps.

 

 

https://broadbandnow.com/Alabama

 

 

:music005:

 

Ever heard the phrase, "Stats can be deceiving?" Well lets take a look at what you quoted.

 

"100% of Alabamians have access to mobile broadband."

Care to define "access"? If you mean, 'can buy a phone and service contract" than yes, I have access. However, making the connection is another deal entirely. Dead spots abound due to a lack of antennas. And under 5G it will get worse as we will need even more antennas (one estimate is that 5G will require as many new antennas installed as have been installed for cell access in the last 20 years. The higher the frequency, the shorter the range).

 

"83% of Alabamians have access to wired broadband 25mbps or faster."

Ah, there is that word, 'access' again. In fact, I am on a plan that provides internet speeds up to 100 mbps. So I am in the 83%. Seems to prove your point. Except the areas where you can get that speed are very limited. Single plan, so everyone is on the same plan, whether you get 10 mbps or 100 mbps.

 

"the statewide average speed in Alabama is 34mbps."

Oh to be 'average'. I bet the folks in Birmingham and Montgomery are far above the statewide average. Of course, that also means there are a number of places below the average. Average is a funny thing, because it can use a couple of high numbers to hide a bunch of low numbers. Consider this example. Two cities at 100 (say Birmingham and Montgomery), a second city at 75 (say Huntsville). Now add in an area that gets only 20, four areas that get only 10, and two more areas that max out at 5. The average is 34.5, but in reality 70% of the areas do not have speed greater than the average.

 

This is the problem with the Internet, broadband and access. Even 'broadband' was only recently (2015) defined by the FCC as 25 Mbit/s downstream, 3 Mbit/s upstream. Prior to that the FCC defined broadband as 4 Mbit/s downstream, 1 Mbit/s upstream.

 

Finally "download music (vs streaming), buy CD's when you can find 'em, and upgrade your service when and if you can."

 

Streaming music, what a delightful idea. Except, did I mention that I am on a data cap? Yea, I have to watch how much data I use, or I have to pay a penalty. So there is not just a speed issue involved, there is also a limit on how much data I can use.

 

In my car I have satellite radio (closest thing to streaming I get). I am able to get the majority of my music through Amazon or Walmart as CDs. Although it is becoming harder to find CDs in the big box stores. And in small rural areas, you may have one within a 45 minute drive (here I am fortunate to have one within a 15 minute drive - see here I am above average). As far as upgrade my service, well, I would love to. Except I am on the 'highest rated service with the fastest speeds' in the area - remember the plan that offers speeds "up to 100 Mbps". So if I switch I downgrade service and speed.

 

My guess is you live in an area with excellent internet no matter where you go and life is good! You can stream, live video chat and more all from your phone. Congratulations. But remember, most areas aren't like that. The 'fly-over' part of the country doesn't have access like you do because we are so spread out. That is why your 'solutions' may work in your area, but not in mine and a lot of others. Please try to remember that.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Between this and another uncalled for swipe at Dendy in another thread, I see SSS hasn't changed that much. :D

 

 

¡Ay Carumba!

Well...Look who came out of the woodwork!

 

I’ll soon be sending you a lovely assorted Cheese plate to go with your W(h)ine.

😘

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Streaming is useful to get exposure IF you are in a niche genre. Mine is Blues, and I have thousands of streams to people all over the world who would never have heard me otherwise. That's how I got my 59 cents credit on Spotify over a years time.

 

To say streaming produces any usable artist income is a telling symptom of delusional thinking. Perhaps a Xanax or Klonopin prescription would help...

 

Another, more visible, example: Peter Frampton had 1.58 million streams of one of his songs last year, and got a Spotify check for $1400. For a year. Before taxes.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author
Streaming is useful to get exposure IF you are in a niche genre. Mine is Blues, and I have thousands of streams to people all over the world who would never have heard me otherwise. That's how I got my 59 cents credit on Spotify over a years time.

 

You can't even buy a single guitar string for that these days.

 

 

Another, more visible, example: Peter Frampton had 1.58 million streams of one of his songs last year, and got a Spotify check for $1400. For a year. Before taxes.

 

And that would probably pay for a two night hotel room stay (less damages).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

My guess is you live in an area with excellent internet no matter where you go and life is good! You can stream, live video chat and more all from your phone. Congratulations. But remember, most areas aren't like that. The 'fly-over' part of the country doesn't have access like you do because we are so spread out. That is why your 'solutions' may work in your area, but not in mine and a lot of others. Please try to remember that.

 

I'm 6 miles from Washington DC, and I have Verizon FiOS:

 

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"left","data-size":"full","title":"37084070.png","data-attachmentid":32295184}[/ATTACH]

Pretty slow, right? 128 kbps MP3 streams are usually continuous, but often videos are not, and I can't dream of watching a TV program.

 

Now don't get me wrong - this isn't typical of Internet speeds in my area. I could get ten times that rate if I was willing to pay for it, but I'm not. The cost for a month of service at "full speed" is more than I spent on CDs last year. Which says that I'm pretty much of a cheapskate when it comes to paying for music in two ways.

 

As far as my phone is concerned, I have AT&T's prepaid service (10 cents per minute) and throw in an extra $5 a month for 50 MB of data just to have it in reserve if I ever need it and can't find a Starbucks or McDonald's (or any of the many other places where there's free WiFi). Where else can I get mostly reliable phone service with a bit of data for $13 a month? AT&T does have me by the short hairs here, though. Since air time and data doesn't expire as long as you renew in time, I have automatic renewal set up, and since I rarely use the phone (or data), and I've had this account since 2001, I have about $400 "in the bank" which would go right into AT&T's bank if I dropped this service and switched to something else. But it's how I roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Actually, I was in YOUR Mom’s basement last night...booty call, then she made me some lovely pupus.

 

.😘

 

 

"Cool story, Bro... said no one, ever."

 

"I’ll soon be sending you a lovely assorted Cheese plate to go with your W(h)ine."

 

 

your insults are even more antiquated than optical media :bounce022:

 

 

you're like a throwback to some kid "pwning" someone on the Internet circa 1995, well done! :eatdrink004:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh, OK. Now I get it. It's just about connecting and consuming, not about how that might benefit the artist. It can surely boost his ego, but there's evidence that this sort of exposure doesn't yield any significant income. There's nothing wrong with giving away your music, but that's for hobbyists, not for those hoping to develop a career around music.

 

 

no -- I'm afraid you don't get it at all.

 

you sound like someone who is trying to understand the value of cars as a gadget that brings you to your horses.

 

and viewing social media through the lens of free vs. bought music, hobbyist vs professional, is itself antiquated.

 

this is how music on all levels -- hobbyists, professionals, locals, stars -- connect with fans, distribute material, and operate. not just to boost egos (although it certainly does that), but exactly because it's an integral part of how they earn income and drive a career.

 

perhaps you've heard of Justin Bieber or Taylor Swift? Or local musicians who use social media to connect with fans, gigs, and other opportunities?

 

I'm not trying to argue with you about which system is better, only that this new system IS the system, IS an integral part of how contemporary musicians drive their career, IS the principal way fans listen to music, and has obliterated optical media, whether you like it or not, whether you're aware of it or not. :idk:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'm 6 miles from Washington DC, and I have Verizon FiOS:

 

[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\t37084070.png Views:\t1 Size:\t32.0 KB ID:\t32295184","data-align":"left","data-attachmentid":"32295184","data-size":"full","title":"37084070.png"}[/ATTACH]

Pretty slow, right? 128 kbps MP3 streams are usually continuous, but often videos are not, and I can't dream of watching a TV program.

 

Now don't get me wrong - this isn't typical of Internet speeds in my area. I could get ten times that rate if I was willing to pay for it, but I'm not. The cost for a month of service at "full speed" is more than I spent on CDs last year. Which says that I'm pretty much of a cheapskate when it comes to paying for music in two ways.

 

As far as my phone is concerned, I have AT&T's prepaid service (10 cents per minute) and throw in an extra $5 a month for 50 MB of data just to have it in reserve if I ever need it and can't find a Starbucks or McDonald's (or any of the many other places where there's free WiFi). Where else can I get mostly reliable phone service with a bit of data for $13 a month? AT&T does have me by the short hairs here, though. Since air time and data doesn't expire as long as you renew in time, I have automatic renewal set up, and since I rarely use the phone (or data), and I've had this account since 2001, I have about $400 "in the bank" which would go right into AT&T's bank if I dropped this service and switched to something else. But it's how I roll.

 

 

that's not FiOS digital, that's DSL over copper.

 

I checked the FiOS speeds in your area and the slowest plan appears to be 100 Mbps.

 

you're living in the past bro!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

 

that's not FiOS digital, that's DSL over copper.

I checked the FiOS speeds in your area and the slowest plan appears to be 100 Mbps.

you're living in the past bro!

 

No, you're wrong - not about the DSL-comparable speed, but about that I don't have FiOS. There's genuine fiber coming to the house, a new box on the outside wall, a new box inside the house (that beeps every month to remind me to buy a new battery), and a new router. I could pay more money and get more speed, but I don't need it and don't want to pay for it. I get enough TV over the air so that a full-out bundle isn't tempting.

 

I previously had DSL over copper (before that, a second voice phone line and dial-up modem that was always connected). The DSL worked fine for several years until Verizon decided that they didn't want to maintain copper any longer. The line got noisy (both for data and voice) and they'd come out and fix something that held for a month or two and then got noisy again. They kept pestering me to switch to FiOS but they were quoting me prices that, even with generous discounts, would more than double my monthly phone bill. I told them that I didn't need the higher speed of fiber, but I'd be willing to accept FiOS, which has its own set of annoyances, if they could give it to me for the same price I was paying for DSL. The benefit for them would be, presumably, lower maintenance cost.

 

It took a couple of years of turning down their offers, but eventually someone who called came up with an acceptable deal. My monthly rate actually went down by a few dollars, but the voice service wasn't unlimited as before, but instead, was 5 cents per minute for outgoing calls, though calls to toll-free numbers are still completely free. That's not a big deal since it's rare that I make a phone call lasting more than a couple of minutes. So now I have land-line phone and low speed Internet, with better voice quality than it's ever been, and only one service outage in the three years since it's been installed, and that's because a construction crew accidentally dug up a cable. I don't know how they choke down the speed, but this is a special rate (both price and speed) for reluctant copper customers like me. They call it "3/1 FiOS" (3 Mbps/second download, 1 Mpbs upload), but I've always achieved a little better speed than that.

 

I'm satisfied with data speed, voice quality, and price. There will be a time, perhaps, when I'll move to an area where I can't get over-the-air TV and Verizon doesn't provide service, and then I'll join the 100 Mbps $100/month crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

 

no -- I'm afraid you don't get it at all.

 

Hey, gimme a break. I'm 75 years old and I'm enjoying life as I'm living it.

 

you sound like someone who is trying to understand the value of cars as a gadget that brings you to your horses.

 

and viewing social media through the lens of free vs. bought music, hobbyist vs professional, is itself antiquated.

 

Huh? I don't view social media through the lens of free music, I view social media as one way that musicians can spread their name around and offer samples of their music - as well as all the other things people do on social media platforms. But statistics show that there's hardly any money being made by small-time musicians solely through social media or music streaming.

 

And note that I still begin sentences with a capital letter.

 

this is how music on all levels -- hobbyists, professionals, locals, stars -- connect with fans, distribute material, and operate. not just to boost egos (although it certainly does that), but exactly because it's an integral part of how they earn income and drive a career.

 

perhaps you've heard of Justin Bieber or Taylor Swift? Or local musicians who use social media to connect with fans, gigs, and other opportunities?

 

Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift appeal to people who want to adore them (and be adored by them) in social media. It doesn't have anything to do with their music. Besides, what's the newfangled thing with musicians "connecting" with their fans? In my day, sonny, I'd go to a concert and afterward the artist would come out and chat with audience members, and sometimes we'd buy records or song books and they'd autograph them. But then, there weren't concerts with tens of thousands of fans attending.

 

I'm not trying to argue with you about which system is better, only that this new system IS the system, IS an integral part of how contemporary musicians drive their career, IS the principal way fans listen to music, and has obliterated optical media, whether you like it or not, whether you're aware of it or not.

 

And, I'm asking, "Is this a career?" "Connecting" on social media is a publicity method that didn't exist until this generation, and it really really replace anything. Everybody knew who Frank Sinatra or the Rolling Stones were without "connecting" with them. Taylor Swift wouldn't be as big a star as she is without all of her work on social media - it's part of doing her job as an artist. But there's only so much money to go around. I hear stories about local bands getting bookings in local clubs for local pay based on the number of Facebook friends they have - with this being the measurement of their value as entertainment. So I guess it's something that, at a certain level, you just have to do. Used to be that musicians put up posters on telephone poles and in record stores, and you worked to get your music played on local radio stations. When you got to be big enough, you had a manager to take care of that part of your business. Now, when you get to be big enough, you have a manager that takes over your social media duties for you.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I did a little research of n00b ‘zyges’..found this picture of him plying his trade in his hometown...his parents and family must be so proud...

 

Christ....I shoulda just left it at a thumbnail...But no...I had to open it.......:barf:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This showed up in the local news site down here. Seems relevant to the (main) conversation.

 

Why Alabama local music radio shows still matter

 

Local-band T-shirts are going to be his barometer. A year or so from now, if Brett Tannehill sees more people around Huntsville wearing them, he'll feel like "Valley Sounds," the new local-focused music show on Huntsville public radio station WLRH 89.3 FM, where Tannehill is general manager, has made an impact.

 

"In my dream world," Tannehill says, "it would be great if everybody who listens to the show found five local bands that they liked. To actually go out and see bands, and just have an overall appreciation for people creating things locally."

 

"Valley Sounds" debuted in June and airs 9 p.m. Saturdays. The hour-long show features music and interviews with musicians based in this area, such as soul-rocker Lamont Landers, rapper Dizzy D, singer/songwriter Kat Elizabeth, R&B maestro Kelvin Wooten and alt-folk band Wolves of Chernobyl. "Valley Sounds" also spins tunes from touring acts with upcoming performances in the area. For example, ahead of June's Tangled String Festival, the show played tracks from Amanda Shires and Lilly Hiatt. Hence the tagline "original music created and performed in the Tennessee Valley."

 

 

Full article at https://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2018/08/why_alabama_local-music_radio.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...