The value of music?

[Vito Corleone]

 

...But when I see people shoveling money into the jukebox... it blows the "it's dead" thoery out of the water. And there's still the royalties and licensing for tv and film, which right now is a booming business for composers and songwriters / bands.

 

 

Like I said, I don't think writing songs and recording them is dead. Musicians want to create. That will never die. But releasing those recordings on CD or other digital formats is dying. Royalties from TV and film are part of the new paradigm. Why? Because it is impossible for those people to access the music they want, for the purposes they want it, for free. If you want to use a song in your TV show, you HAVE to pay for it.

 

The jukebox works because there's no other way to listen to a particular song in that bar at that time. So THAT works in that limited paradigm.

 

What DOESN'T work anymore is the idea that if I want to listen to Lady Gaga in my house or car or portable music player right now that I have to BUY a copy of the recording to do so. And I don't see any way to change that.

 

I think what has to happen is recorded music has to once again become a rare commodity. (Again, basic supply and demand.) Stop releasing CDs and digital downloads. Release recorded music only to radio, to jukeboxes, and on TV/movies where the distribution can be more tightly controlled. Sure there will still be pirated version floating around, but it will be much harder to come by.

 

THEN perhaps a new paradigm will develop whereby music can be released for general public consumption that can't be so simply pirated. I have no idea what that would be, but I would think supply and demand would neccesitate the development of SOMETHING eventually.

[Kramerguy]

I don't disagree, but have to wonder.. if I can't stop the local bands from playing for free or even paying to play (which devalues all the other bands), how can I stop them from recording and releasing crap on media?

 

Unless you are referring to the label bands only? Kinda like a sachs vs. wal mart quality thing?

[Lee Flier]

 

I dont agree that there isnt a filter ,,, You chart one up there on clear channel and you got a real money making hit.

 

 

Yes you do, but 1) broadcast radio has lost a lot of ratings, too, and 2) radio is now so narrowly formatted that the number of people who are actually getting mainstream radio airplay has shrunk to almost nothing. Deregulation led to the consolidation of a zillion stations under one owner (e.g. Clear Channel) and they decide on the playlists at the national level.

 

It used to be that DJs and program directors locally could decide on their own what songs to play, and national hits often originated as regional hits. Now, DJs and local PDs have little or no control over what they play, the regional hit is almost non existent and the major labels' rosters have shrunk. You might as well win the lottery as get any airplay on Clear Channel, and of course the majority of the stuff they play is terrible anyway.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I don't disagree, but have to wonder.. if I can't stop the local bands from playing for free or even paying to play (which devalues all the other bands), how can I stop them from recording and releasing crap on media? Unless you are referring to the label bands only? Kinda like a sachs vs. wal mart quality thing?

 

 

Yeah. There's STILL going to be a value to hooking up with a 'label' who will be the best method to get your recording to the money sources: movies/TV, jukeboxes, radio.

 

There will be a ton of free music around recorded by local bands and such. But getting to hear that new song again that you heard on the radio yesterday will be much more difficult to do.

[Vito Corleone]

Maybe there should be some sort of release 'window'. The new Lady Gaga songs are ONLY available on radio and on jukeboxes for the first 6 months. That will increase the traffic to those outlets, thereby increasing the revenue those sources bring in. Then, months later, releasing it for general consumption.

 

I dunno. Obviously a lot of holes in such a plan, but maybe there's a genesis of a good paradigm in there somewhere?

[Vito Corleone]

 

Now, DJs and local PDs have little or no control over what they play,

 

 

Do radio stations even still HAVE such positions?

[3shiftgtr]

 

Do radio stations even still HAVE such positions?

 

 

The closest thing they have to a DJ is some douchebag that laughs in the background during "The Morning Zoo".......

[Lee Flier]

Yeah, of course a lot of local DJs have been supplanted by syndicated ones, and PDs are mostly dealing with advertising and whatever small amount of local programming might still happen.

 

Really blows.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Yeah, of course a lot of local DJs have been supplanted by syndicated ones, and PDs are mostly dealing with advertising and whatever small amount of local programming might still happen. Really blows.

 

 

I agree with you that the state of music radio is pathetic and that deregulation is what caused it. But having said that, I don't know that it's any harder to break a hit or an act nationally now than it ever was. It's ALWAYS been hard. But the rules have certainly changed.

 

I also seem to see a bit of people wanting to have it both ways: on one hand they cheer the democratization of music and ease of access created by the internet and home recording, but on the other hand believe that there is SO much music and so much crap out there that it dillutes the good stuff and brings down the value of recorded music in general.

[Lee Flier]

 

I agree with you that the state of music radio is pathetic and that deregulation is what caused it. But having said that, I don't know that it's any harder to break a hit or an act nationally now than it ever was. It's ALWAYS been hard.

 

 

Yes it's always been hard, but it's a matter of degree. Like I said, if you were willing to tour your region and develop a regional following you could often get some airplay on mainstream stations, and if you did well in your region, other national PDs might pick it up. This didn't happen too often for truly independent bands but it happened often enough for bands on smaller labels. Now, it pretty much doesn't happen at all. The only way to get national or regional airplay on mainstream stations is if you're on a major label that is doling out out major payola to Clear Channel.

 

 

I also seem to see a bit of people wanting to have it both ways: on one hand they cheer the democratization of music and ease of access created by the internet and home recording, but on the other hand believe that there is SO much music and so much crap out there that it dillutes the good stuff and brings down the value of recorded music in general.

 

 

Yeah, as I've already said, I'm one of those people who wants it both ways and has no idea how to reconcile those two things. I completely realize that they're somewhat mutually exclusive, but I think it's more the extremity that I'm complaining about. It'd be nice if there were still some barriers to entry, but just not to the point where it's just a few behemoth corporations churning out mostly pablum vs. being totally indie and having zero promotion or financial backing.

 

A "musical middle class" is what I'm really asking for, which mostly doesn't exist now and has rarely ever existed at any point.

[TrickyBoy]

 

broadcast radio has lost a lot of ratings, too,

 

 

And with the rapidly growing popularity of Satellite and Internet radio, Clear Channel's grip on content is rapidly slipping. On my satellite radio, I don't need to listen to a "rock" station. I can now narrow to 80's rock or Indie rock or 90's rock or Deep Album Tracks, or Jam Bands, or.....

 

Personally, I can't stomach commercial broadcast radio any more. I got satellite 4-5 years ago and I'm to the point now where I'd rather listen to nothing than hear 2 songs followed by 4 minutes of commercials followed by some yammering DJ for a minute before I get 2 more songs.

[modulusman]

I read an article in the new Rolling Stone yesterday by Paul McGuiness who is U2s manager. It is titled "How to Save the Music Business". His idea is to make Internet service providers share some of their wealth with recording artists. Since the ISP providers have gotten rich off of "free music". The demand caused an explosion of broadband growth earlier in the decade.

[TrickyBoy]

 

A "musical middle class" is what I'm really asking for, which mostly doesn't exist now and has rarely ever existed at any point.

 

 

Kinda like a "farming middle class", it doesn't exist. Once corporations begin to consolidate and "commoditize" something, the ability for the average Joe to make a buck disappears. Once something is commoditized, "originality" and "creativity" and "quality" are no longer looked at as positive things that should be rewarded. Those are unfortunately replaced with "predictable" and "repeatable" and "cheap". Which's one of the reasons you think I switch to a Vegan diet. :poke:

 

The sad thing is that the closest thing to a music middle class is the coverband market, where there is a realistic opportunity to make $75K a year.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Yes it's always been hard, but it's a matter of degree. Like I said, if you were willing to tour your region and develop a regional following you could often get some airplay on mainstream stations, and if you did well in your region, other national PDs might pick it up. This didn't happen too often for truly independent bands but it happened often enough for bands on smaller labels. Now, it pretty much doesn't happen at all. The only way to get national or regional airplay on mainstream stations is if you're on a major label that is doling out out major payola to Clear Channel.

 

 

True, but don't you think that is offset somewhat by the OTHER avenues to national exposure that didn't exist before? Haven't there been cases of songs being used on TV shows and becoming national hits that only previously had exposure on MySpace and things like that?

 

Yeah, as I've already said, I'm one of those people who wants it both ways and has no idea how to reconcile those two things. I completely realize that they're somewhat mutually exclusive, but I think it's more the extremity that I'm complaining about. It'd be nice if there were still some barriers to entry, but just not to the point where it's just a few behemoth corporations churning out mostly pablum vs. being totally indie and having zero promotion or financial backing. A "musical middle class" is what I'm really asking for, which mostly doesn't exist now and has rarely ever existed at any point.

 

 

This is America. We don't need no stinkin' Middle Class. :poke:

[Vito Corleone]

 

The sad thing is that the closest thing to a music middle class is the coverband market, where there is a realistic opportunity to make $75K a year.

 

 

 

And that's always been the case. At least for the 30+ years I've been in this business. You can make a living playing covers or you can either starve-or-become-a-millionaire playing originals.

 

There aren't really a whole lot of other options.

[Kramerguy]

$75k? I can think of maybe 3 bands in my region that make that much, but then you gotta think about splitting it 4 or 5 ways... I don't see any opportunity to make that personally doing covers.

 

Easier IMO to get a solo gig doing originals, go and tour americas finest bistros and coffee houses for minimal pay + tips - I've seen people do that and make far more money than playing in coverbands

[Lee Flier]

 

The sad thing is that the closest thing to a music middle class is the coverband market, where there is a realistic opportunity to make $75K a year.

 

 

Yeah... which of course certainly doesn't do any good for the actual "art" part of the equation.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I read an article in the new Rolling Stone yesterday by Paul McGuiness who is U2s manager. It is titled "How to Save the Music Business". His idea is to make Internet service providers share some of their wealth with recording artists. Since the ISP providers have gotten rich off of "free music". The demand caused an explosion of broadband growth earlier in the decade.

 

 

Good idea.

 

I've heard that one of the reasons it's been so hard to clamp down on illegal downloading is that the ISP providers were relucant to get involved because they feared that without illegal downloading nobody would be willing to pay so much for high-speed access.

 

I think that's probably changed now since there's so many other reasons to have high-speed access besides downloading songs and movies, but it's still not a bad idea to have the ISPs pay.

 

Of course, that likely only means that for every $20 the ISPs pay the music industry they'll use as an excuse to raise broadband fees by $25....

[Kramerguy]

yep, make a business pay, they just pass the cost on to the customers.

 

Kinda like setting fines against Exxon and BP.. who really pays for it..

[Vito Corleone]

 

yep, make a business pay, they just pass the cost on to the customers. Kinda like setting fines against Exxon and BP.. who really pays for it..

 

 

True. But, OTOH, if it's the broadband customers who are downloading the stuff for free, SHOULDN'T the cost be passed down to them?

[Lee Flier]

 

And that's always been the case. At least for the 30+ years I've been in this business. You can make a living playing covers or you can either starve-or-become-a-millionaire playing originals. There aren't really a whole lot of other options.

 

 

Completely disagree. 30 years ago you most certainly could make a living as an original band. You might not make a whole lot, but it was doable because there were gigs where you could play 4 sets doing a mix of originals and covers, residency gigs, all sorts of things. Original bands could play military bases and frat parties that now will only hire cover bands. And most importantly, when you played a gig as an original band, people showed up. If you weren't established yet, and you were any good, you could get a slot opening for an established band and be seen by a lot of potential new fans who'd come back to see you next time, and all the clubs had a regular crowd. This was also the case if you went on the road, so you didn't face the spectre of being an out of town band that nobody's heard of and 6 people show up.

 

Hell, my band in those days used to have roadies. Can't even imagine that, now...

[Vito Corleone]

 

And most importantly, when you played a gig as an original band, people showed up.

 

 

Why do you think it is that people don't show up?

[Lee Flier]

 

True. But, OTOH, if it's the broadband customers who are downloading the stuff for free, SHOULDN'T the cost be passed down to them?

 

 

Yes, and this is actually an idea that's been thrown around. ISPs would pay a royalty fee similar to the blanket licenses that venues pay to performing rights organizations, and yes this would cause the customer's fees to go up, but then the customer doesn't have to worry about downloading stuff illegally or anything like that - they can get their music from legit sites and the artist will get paid.

 

It would take a lot for that to happen though. Companies like Apple would see it as a huge threat to iTunes, some consumers might bitch about it, and the RIAA would probably still strongarm their way into everybody's business somehow. It's hard to say what ISPs would think about it - they'd probably be happy to avoid potential lawsuits and investigations for hosting people's illegal content, but they may or may not think the extra fees are worth it. It's a very tricky thing, but may be the only way out of this mess.

[Kramerguy]

 

Why do you think it is that people don't show up?

 

 

before internet, people went out and did things. Now you got internet, much more tv channels, xbox, etc..

 

Even before.. home video game systems were weak and became boring fast, now you got gamefly, netflix, etc.. to keep you plugged in.

 

Go to any bar that doesn't have live music and you will find the same problem.. people just don't go out as much. The bars that thrive right now are the sports bars that have big-screen tv's plastered all over the place...

[Lee Flier]

 

Why do you think it is that people don't show up?

 

 

A whole host of contributing factors IMO - in the 70s and 80s you still had the tail end of the Baby Boom coming of age, so sheer population is one reason. Stricter DUI laws and more people moving out to suburbs is another. More and more forms of entertainment keeping people at home (Internet, giant screen TVs, etc) is yet another. All these things contribute.

 

But I'll tell you what I really think drove the nail in the coffin of the local original scene, seeing as I was there from the beginning of it: pay to play. Once the clubs in L.A. started doing pay to play and figured out they could get gullible musicians to do their work for them, other cities quickly followed suit and did some variation on it. It became entirely up to the band to "bring the crowd" and do the promotion, and whether the band was any good musically or not became secondary to that. So people just quit going out to see "whoever was there" because "whoever was there" most likely sucked. The days of venue owners using actual judgment to determine who should get a booking, putting together bills that made sense, and doing advertising and promotion to get people in the door pretty much went away. Now, the only original bands people will usually go out to see are those they've already heard of - you don't get much random traffic which is the lifeblood of marketing. A lot of people won't even show up to see the opener for a band they like.

 

Both in L.A. and here, the downfall of the local club scene pretty much coincided with clubs adopting some variation of this model. Even if it's not an outright pay to play club, most venues that feature live original music are more concerned about a band's short term "draw" for the night than anything else. One never used to get asked by a venue booker: "How many people can you bring in?" That was unheard of... and I bet there's not one person here now who's in an original band and hasn't been asked that many times.