just curious

[Kramerguy]

A farmer recently moved next door to a bunch of other farmers.

 

He's a bit green, still doesn't understand how to grow quite as well as the others, but he's coming along at a normal pace.

 

The only problem is that not a lot of people are buying his food. He decides that since he has it and grew it, that he might as well just give it away.

 

So, even though his food is sub-standard compared to the other farmers, people can't resist free.. so they take the free produce.

 

The other farmers all start to suffer from sub-standard sales and have to lower their prices dramatically to compete not just with free, but with each other as well.

 

Fast forward a year.

 

The newer farmer got a little better, but now he can't sell ANY produce, because everyone now expects him to give it away, or at a price much lower than that of the other farms, so he's stuck selling it at a massive loss.

 

All the other farmers are taking massive losses.

 

So those other farmers, who spent their whole lives mastering their trade all got taken out by a sub-standard farmer who ruined the market for everyone.

 

 

My point, even though no analogy is perfect, it seems to fit that of the bands who just give away free albums and EP's....

 

For god's sake, put some value on what you are doing.. if it's sub-par compared to the pros, then charge less, but don't give the crap away... jeez, you are hurting everyone else, intentional or not.

[ggm1960]

I guess I don't think crappy music hurts anyone except perhaps the people that listen to it. You can give it away all day and I'll never care or be interested. There will always be a market for great music from extremely talented artists who aren't likely to be giving anything away when it's proven they can command a crowd.

Also consider the fact I'll never buy or listen to deathcore no matter the price. I wouldn't be interested in any music that didn't have great melodies and vocals.

 

So if the farmer is growing tomatoes I might be interested in those but if it's squash I don't want it even if it's free.

[Lopp]

Yeah. It's easy to get jaded when we can charge more for a quality product, but people are willing to pay less to get a lesser product. We reach a point where we can charge more, and other bands undercut us.

 

It's all part of the market. Supply and demand. If someone can sell a gizmo for less than you are charging, people will buy it because it is cheaper, even if it isn't as good as your gizmo. Someone may even come into the market with a decent quality gizmo, but will charge less to try and lure people to buy their gizmos, where the new producer hopes to increase their price after they have grabbed market share. When they increase their price, someone else comes in and does the same thing. There is enough supply to keep the price down.

 

Supply and demand.

 

We are in a field where some people are willing to supply the service for free to try to break into the market. Heck, some are even willing to pay to play, just for the fun of it. That makes it hard to charge a good price for all of our hard work.

 

It is what it is.

[rorylawford]

 

Yeah. It's easy to get jaded when we can charge more for a quality product, but people are willing to pay less to get a lesser product. We reach a point where we can charge more, and other bands undercut us. It's all part of the market. Supply and demand. If someone can sell a gizmo for less than you are charging, people will buy it because it is cheaper, even if it isn't as good as your gizmo. Someone may even come into the market with a decent quality gizmo, but will charge less to try and lure people to buy their gizmos, where the new producer hopes to increase their price after they have grabbed market share. When they increase their price, someone else comes in and does the same thing. There is enough supply to keep the price down. Supply and demand. We are in a field where some people are willing to supply the service for free to try to break into the market. Heck, some are even willing to pay to play, just for the fun of it. That makes it hard to charge a good price for all of our hard work. It is what it is.

 

 

A regular gig we had done for 6 years on New year's Eve decided 2 years ago that they could hire three bands and pay for those 3 bands collectively less than a third of what we charge. So they hired the three cheapie bands for their New Year's Festival. The next year they called us back and gave us a raise to get us back.

 

The point... some will go for the freebie/cheapie once, but once they see what they are getting, they will come back and spend fair dollar for a quality band. Just speaking from my own experience.

[Lopp]

 

I guess I don't think crappy music hurts anyone except perhaps the people that listen to it. You can give it away all day and I'll never care or be interested. There will always be a market for great music from extremely talented artists who aren't likely to be giving anything away when it's proven they can command a crowd.

 

 

That leads into a good metaphor with sports. The highest level players get paid a gazillion dollars to play pro. However, despite the fact that some athletes get paid, other people are willing to pay to play in recreational leagues, just because they like playing. These are talented athletes who even played varsity at a university, but weren't good enough to play pro.

 

There are many differences, but it's similar to what we do in that people enjoy playing music and are happy to play, even if they aren't getting paid.

[ggm1960]

 

A regular gig we had done for 6 years on New year's Eve decided 2 years ago that they could hire three bands and pay for those 3 bands collectively less than a third of what we charge. So they hired the three cheapie bands for their New Year's Festival. The next year they called us back and g ave us a raise to get us back. The point... some will go for the freebie/cheapie once, but once they see what they are getting, they will come back and spend fair dollar for a quality band. Just speaking from my own experience.

 

 

That's probably the best example right there.

[Lopp]

 

A regular gig we had done for 6 years on New year's Eve decided 2 years ago that they could hire three bands and pay for those 3 bands collectively less than a third of what we charge. So they hired the three cheapie bands for their New Year's Festival. The next year they called us back and g ave us a raise to get us back. The point... some will go for the freebie/cheapie once, but once they see what they are getting, they will come back and spend fair dollar for a quality band. Just speaking from my own experience.

 

 

I agree. No one wants to pay to see a bunch of amateur hacks playing and are willing to pay a good price for quality entertainment. Usually you get what you pay for. Quite often in a free market people will try to cut corners and buy a cheaper product. Sometimes, they might be fine with the cheaper product. Other times, they realize their mistake and come back to the quality product. Especially if they generate more revenue for themselves if they spend a little more for a better product.

[Austincowbell]

Ever compared a home grown tomato to one purchased at a grocery store? They don't smell the same, they don't look the same and the sure as hell don't ask the same.

 

Songs can't be quantified. A song can't be used as a unit of measurement any more easily than can a "coin". In other words, if you say "Steve is giving you a free coin if you will go to his house" thats different than "Dave will give you a solid gold Krugerrand" if you go to his house.

 

I think the price of "commercial grade" downloadable music has been very well established at $0.99 and anything cheaper doesn't really interfere with it's market share. No one is going to say "I won't download the new U2 album because the band on harmony central is giving away free music.

 

In my opinion, it is well within an artist's right to give away his music for free because music isn't a consumable good. In other words, people don't "NEED" music like they need food.

 

{censored} it. I'm drunk and need to sleep.

[backtoblue]

{censored} it. I'm drunk and need to sleep.

Ah, that 'splains it

[Austincowbell]

Do tomatoes talk to you a lot? Ah, that 'splains it

oh man.... let me go back and translate that last one into English. I'll do it after my head stops making thump thump noises.

[modulusman]

Sounds like some of you people didn't read the OPs post about the second year. When the business challenged loser band is actually good enough to get paid they can't because they shot themselves in the ass by playing for free. Meanwhile the bands that were getting paid may have to play for less.

[BlueStrat]

 

That leads into a good metaphor with sports. The highest level players get paid a gazillion dollars to play pro. However, despite the fact that some athletes get paid, other people are willing to pay to play in recreational leagues, just because they like playing. These are talented athletes who even played varsity at a university, but weren't good enough to play pro. There are many differences, but it's similar to what we do in that people enjoy playing music and are happy to play, even if they aren't getting paid.

 

 

Pro athletes are nothing like indie musicians. You cannot become a pro athlete by your own efforts, outside the proscribed system, period.

 

Pro athletics is much like the old system of playing music-think of the teams as the major labels. They have rigorous standards and performance clauses in their contracts. They own the players for awhile. They dictate what the player does, where he does it, and requires him to do promotion for the team.

 

Now, add the fact that players are all members of a player's association or union. This is where the players get their salaries and what musicians are lacking. There can be no pro athletes who play for free, or even at a reduced price just to get the gig. And there are no outlets to broadcast pro sports for free. Pro sports has a monopoly on their broadcasts. Musicians don't.

 

What has killed pro music is the amateurization of it, IMO- any schlong with a band can go get a gig if he's willing to give it away. And a lot of the venues don't care, since many are resticrted in size and if the crappy free band can bring 40 firends who spend money, what difference does it make? The bar makes as much money off the free bands as they do off the 500 dollar one.

 

Imagine if the NFL threw it's doors open to anyone who wanted to play as long as the could guarantee each player and coach would bring 100 people. Wanna guess what the quality of play would be like?

 

Yes, you'll always have athletes who will play for fun. But they don't enter the sports market, play for free and compete against guys who get paid for it. There is a sharp line between the amateur and the pro in sports that doesn't exsist anymore in music.

[Austincowbell]

I think the analogy works for cover bands but not for original bands in that a cover band is a lot more like a business where you just need to get into "the circuit" and you'll make some money while original bands need to get as many people as possible to simply hear them and get interested in them in hopes of catching that golden ring.

[Austincowbell]

Not to mention I haven't seen a whole lot of people giving away an entire studio produced ready for shelves record. Demos, yes. One song here or there, yes, live recordings, yes but VERY rarely their actual record.

[stratman77]

I think the analogy works for cover bands but not for original bands in that a cover band is a lot more like a business where you just need to get into "the circuit" and you'll make some money while original bands need to get as many people as possible to simply hear them and get interested in them in hopes of catching that golden ring.

 

Bingo!!!!

[stevie j]

 

I think the analogy works for cover bands but not for original bands in that a cover band is a lot more like a business where you just need to get into "the circuit" and you'll make some money while original bands need to get as many people as possible to simply hear them and get interested in them in hopes of catching that golden ring.

 

 

True, but I think there should be less distinction between cover and original bands on the bar/small club circuit.

 

IMO, a band is a band, musicians are entertainers. The only time a band should play strictly original material is when they have regular radio play and have sold enough records for people to know their songs and they're playing venues rather than places people go to dance and pull women.

 

The majority of the public want to see something they're familiar with and that they can dance to, that is why DJs are so popular. There are times and places for only original sets and I am not trying to knock any strictly original bands

 

I believe the original/cover band distinction is what is killing live music. The Beatles were a showband before they started writing their own stuff, or at least before they got recognised for their songwriting skills. It was the same for most bands until the late 80s.

[SunRaFan]

 

True, but I think there should be less distinction between cover and original bands on the bar/small club circuit. IMO, a band is a band, musicians are entertainers. The only time a band should play strictly original material is when they have regular radio play and have sold enough records for people to know their songs and they're playing venues rather than places people go to dance and pull women.

 

 

This depends entirely on what the crowds and venues you are playing at want. In the city of Pittsburgh there's much more of a demand for originals. There are multiple bands that can draw 200+ people on a good night. There are no cover bands that I know of that can do that. In the suburbs the opposite is true.

[Lopp]

 

Pro athletes are nothing like indie musicians.

 

 

Yeah, pro athletes have less of a similarity to indie musicians than recreational athletes have with amateur musicians and less of a similarity than pro athletes have with pro musicians.

 

It's called a metaphor. Of course there are differences. Clever people usually find the similarities. :poke:

[BlueStrat]

It's called a metaphor. Of course there are differences. Clever people usually find the similarities.

No, it's called an analogy, and in this case it's a poor one. Clever people know the difference. :poke:

 

 

 

[Lopp]

[Austincowbell]

True, but I think there should be less distinction between cover and original bands on the bar/small club circuit. IMO, a band is a band, musicians are entertainers. The only time a band should play strictly original material is when they have regular radio play and have sold enough records for people to know their songs and they're playing venues rather than places people go to dance and pull women. The majority of the public want to see something they're familiar with and that they can dance to, that is why DJs are so popular. There are times and places for only original sets and I am not trying to knock any strictly original bands I believe the original/cover band distinction is what is killing live music. The Beatles were a showband before they started writing their own stuff, or at least before they got recognised for their songwriting skills. It was the same for most bands until the late 80s.

I completely respect your opinion but I disagree wholeheartedly. If I am going to see an original band play I don't mind 1-2 covers but I am going because I want to hear their original material. By the same token, if I am going to see an 80s hair band metal cover band I don't want to hear their originals. I want to hear songs I know. Further, I don't see a half-cover/half-original band as one that could be taken seriously enough in today's market to get to the level where airplay (read-getting signed) could be a possibility. In thinking about bands I know who have gotten record deals from majors to mid-majors to a guy with one artist not a single one would play more than a single cover in their set. With regards to killing the music scene in the late 80s, I wasn't old enough to be in clubs at the time but since the moment I was old enough (or had a fake ID) to hear live music (1991 or so) the bands I saw who made something of themselves never did a 50/50 or even 80/20 split on originals or covers. They all did all originals with 1-2 covers.

My thinking about an original band playing a lot of covers is that it can potentially cause your audience to anticipate covers and pay less attention to your originals. Further, as I mentioned earlier, there is the fact that you might be taken less seriously.

 

In my mashup (cover-ish) band we basically stopped playing originals simply because that wasn't what the audience came to hear. They came to party so we need to deliver a party. For the originals, I started another band (with a different drummer ). In that band we'll play a cover or 2 but it will be my originals. If they take off they take off but the people who are at those shows will be there to hear my original music for better or for worse.

[BlueStrat]

 

I should have added that I am only jerking your chain. If Bad Analogy were a country, I'd be their king!

 

[BlueStrat]

Further, I don't see a half-cover/half-original band as one that could be taken seriously enough in today's market to get to the level where airplay (read-getting signed) could be a possibility.

Depends entirely on the genre. In about every genre outside of modern rock, it is not only possible but standard practice. Blues, country, jazz, folky stuff, all use covers as much or more than originals in their sets before they're signed. Shawn Mullins talked about this in an interview I read several years ago. He still records covers that he likes and played doing the coffee house/brewpub circuit. He plays a lot of covers in his live sets even today.

[faileddrummer]

I will always stick to this: If it's worth buying, people will pay for it. My band will put out every EP for free online, no problem.

[rhat]

I think its totally a function of how good your originals are ,,, if they are really good, they can go right into a cover set in a bar and they work and you will be able to sell your CDs.. if the are not good ,, they will clear the bar. If they are not good you will end up playing a multi band roster where friends of the bands make up the people who are at the venue , and they will hang around to hear their friends play, every one gets to play rock star and sell their crappy CDs and home made T shirts.