just curious

[BlueStrat]

 

the ridiculous analogies are getting out of hand. You talk of artificially manipulating the market in houses by LOWERING value.

I actually didn't bring up the housing analogy at all-I merely responded to it by pointing out that any market can be manipulated by undercutting. When people enter a market but profit is not a motive for their being there, bad things can happen. I just have to marvel at musicians who say 'well, it's the market,' as if they themselves aren't doing the very things that contribute to it's demise.

 

Look, music is one of the only businesses in the world that has to be self-regulated. There is no sharp line or barrier between pros and hobbyists like there is with acting or pro sports. No pro ball player is going to be threatened by a guy who does it for fun, because they play under contract and are represented by a player's union. Peyton Manning doesn't have to worry about some walk-on no one's ever heard of offering to take his job for free just to get on the field. Nor are TV and film actors going to be replaced by guys willing to act for free just to get on screen because of contracts and SAG. Perhaps extreme examples, I know, but don't get hung up on the example and look at the principle. There is no musical equivalent of SAG or a player's union. The AF of M is a joke and a laughingstock of the industry, and rightly so. They are toothless and anemic.

 

Amateurs are free to ply their trade and compete with pros at every level of the music business, and they are. Unfortunately, most of them are so obsessed with DIY that they have taken no time at all to learn anything about basic business principles or even care about business at all. Judging by what I read on this board every day, a good many people here don't even make a distinction between playing music and trying to sell it in the marketplace. Maybe they don't even know one exists. Fame and popularity are the new currencies, regardless of whether any profit is involved or not. And while undercutting in sports or acting would get you blacklisted at least, and in all probability an asskicking, it seems to be just accepted in the music business as ' just the way it is,' as if we had nothing to do with the state of things.

 

In any other business, you'd make a product or provide a service, and if after a year or so you had no takers, you'd go back to the drawing board or you'd go find something else to do. This is how the music business used to work as well. Now, failure doesn't drop out of the market. It just lowers it's price until it's free. Some failures even pay to play. Which means that a lot of good guys have to do the same. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've been told by a club around here "We just love your band-you guys are great. But ________ will play for half of what you charge and he brings a lot of his friends." Let it be known I'm only asking 100 bucks a guy and that _________has a high paying day gig, as does his wife, with no kids, and he pays his guys out of his pocket, just to make sure he gets the gigs. There are lots of fair to good bands around that just play to get out of the house and drink free beer. Yet the bars can't figure out why they lose money on national acts when they bring them in. Gee, I dunno...maybe because you have a rep for hiring crap and you don't see the value in developing a steady clientele based on having the best bands out there play on a regular basis?

 

 

The fact is, yes, there is far too much supply to keep up with demand. No one is disputing that. Right now, recorded music is as common as dirt, and worth about as much. Just a half hour on itunes will make even the most ardent music fan's head explode. No wonder the general public doesn't seem to want to bother anymore. And as long as every band on the planet thinks every idea they have must be recorded for posterity and then given away when they can't sell it, nothing will change. As long as bar owners only care about numbers in their seats, and only that, nothing will change. As long as every band of full time day jobbers and part time players or every original band with stars in their eyes don't see how playing for little to free and giving away CDs hurts the larger market as a whole, nothing will change-except for the continued downward spiral we're in now.

 

I know I'm pissing in the wind here, trying to bail out the Titanic with a tea cup, but it kills me to see musicians acting out of selfishness and against self interest.

 

I'm going to STFU now. I even made myself depressed!

[SpaceNorman]

 

There is no sharp line or barrier between pros and hobbyists like there is with acting or pro sports. No pro ball player is going to be threatened by a guy who does it for fun, because they play under contract and are represented by a player's union. Peyton Manning doesn't have to worry about some walk-on no one's ever heard of offering to take his job for free just to get on the field. Nor are TV and film actors going to be replaced by guys willing to act for free just to get on screen because of contracts and SAG.

 

 

I think this logic is open for debate. The reason that Peyton Manning doesn't have to worry about a walk-on offering to play for free is because unless that walkon is a gifted athlete of the highest caliber AND one of the idle rich - the need pay living expenses means that a walkon will never have the time and training resources needed to play at Peyton's level. Step down a notch or two in the sporting game - and there are lots of folks playing for free or next to nothing - at a relatively high level and more or less for the love of the game.

 

Same thing goes for actors. It's not just the contracts - it's the total commitment that's required to truly be a feature actor. Unless you're one in a million who are both gifted in terms of acting skills AND idle rich - don't count on seeing your name in lights. However, look at local theatre productions - and they're filled with artists - just like many of us musicians - who've jumped at parts in local theatre for little or no money just to have the opportunity to practice their craft.

 

{censored} league pro sports and community theatre (both of which are analogous with the local bar band market) are filled with folks who are playing for free - or for subsistence wages sooooo meager that it may as well be for free.

[Kramerguy]

I think this logic is open for debate. The reason that Peyton Manning doesn't have to worry about a walk-on offering to play for free is because unless that walkon is a gifted athlete of the highest caliber AND one of the idle rich - the need pay living expenses means that a walkon will never have the time and training resources needed to play at Peyton's level. Step down a notch or two in the sporting game - and there are lots of folks playing for free or next to nothing - at a relatively high level and more or less for the love of the game. Same thing goes for actors. It's not just the contracts - it's the total commitment that's required to truly be a feature actor. Unless you're one in a million who are both gifted in terms of acting skills AND idle rich - don't count on seeing your name in lights. However, look at local theatre productions - and they're filled with artists - just like many of us musicians - who've jumped at parts in local theatre for little or no money just to have the opportunity to practice their craft. {censored} league pro sports and community theatre (both of which are analogous with the local bar band market) are filled with folks who are playing for free - or for subsistence wages sooooo meager that it may as well be for free.

Finally an analogy that fits

I would compare those other artists performing for peanuts or free to bands that play for free or pay to play... but how would you compare them to bands that give away free albums? Do the theater actors hand out free copies of the movie they starred in?

[rorylawford]

BlueStrat - I wasn't singling you as a starting a bad analogy - that I came across that way, I sincerely apologize for that. I was just pointing out (wayyyyyy badly I'll admit) that one can take almost any type of analogy and twist it to fit the tenets of their own argument.

I agree with you all on the drag of being undercut by mediocre or worse bands who will play for nothing simply to keep gigging - but in my own experience(and yes this is only my own experience and everyone will have different experiences than theirs - I know that) in my experience, the quality acts around here still get the choice dates at the choice clubs/venues and get the choice money.

When bar X in town runs the $100 (or less) per guy bands, his competition across the street runs bands like mine who make 6 to 10 times that and his bar is full from song one to last call with line-ups out the door to get in - and those throngs inside are hard drinkers spending money on copious amounts of booze. The bar across the street with the cheaper band is a virtual ghost-town where the band's friends only impediment to stretching out is having to maneuver around the tumbleweeds blowing through.

To be honest, we have had on occasion had a venue tell us we were too expensive in relation to a no-name band he could get for a tenth of our price - or even free. We said 'enjoy the show', and let the other band play the show for next to nothing. Then the venue's called us after the show, asking us to come back and agreeing to our price - they realized that buddy wassisname and the whoseamacallits' 40 friends who come out do not equal the couple of hundred drinkers who come out to party with the top shelf bands. They realized that whatever money they saved on the cost of the band, was wiped out by the loss of liquor sales and cover charges.

That's why I don't share the fear and loathing of those lower price bands. I guess I am just really lucky that the venues in my region recognize the value spending proper money to make proper money rather than losing dollars to save dimes.

And remember too, that some of those cheapie bands are youngin's just starting out and they have to start out cheaper because they simply cannot priovide the drawing power - yet.

As to giving away music, I can empathize with the frustration of feeling your products worth is devalued by others giving their own away. Although I honestly feel that such practices' effect on your products percived value is very very minor in comparison is the effects that the en masse illegal downloading of music online (in other words, theft) has done to warp people's perception of the worth of recorded music.

Just my opinion, and I'm sorry for coming out swinging last night.

[BlueStrat]

I think this logic is open for debate.

Well, certainly! It is entirely possible that I am as wrong as can be. Wouldn't be the first time, nor likely the last.

 

Just my opinion, and I'm sorry for coming out swinging last night.

Nothing to apologize for. Everyone here still lubs ya!

 

 

[Kramerguy]

They realized that whatever money they saved on the cost of the band, was wiped out by the loss of liquor sales and cover charges. That's why I don't share the fear and loathing of those lower price bands. I guess I am just really lucky that the venues in my region recognize the value spending proper money to make proper money rather than losing dollars to save dimes.

 

 

In my neck of the woods, the opposite seems to be the case. Bars book {censored} bands week after week, do {censored} business, then force the bands to take even less to play there, never seeming to realize that the loss of business is directly related to the lack of good bands. They probably do realize it, but something in their brain seems to have permanently blocked off the idea of paying a decent band a decent cut, so the cycle continues.

[Janx]

I think the difference in pro- and the rest of us is a bit more complex. I'm going to use the word "Pro" but that's not a good choice.

"Pro" athletes play in the NFL, NBA, and whatever the other sports leagues are.

"Pro" actors have starring roles in movies and tv shows, (at the minimum recurring roles). Extras and community theatre actors aren't.

"Pro" musicians are the guys who are the in the top of the sales lists. They're making money and living off of it.

All of these "Pro"s have a support structure and gatekeeper to keep the system going. That support structure is unions, agents, and organizations.

The rest of us, while some of us are "professionals" as in doing it for a living, aren't "pro". At that point, we're all scrabbling for the scraps, often undercutting each other. And the "non-pro" market is flooded with people trying to play.

I don't think my breakdown of "pro" and "non-pro" is contradictory to the discussion. My point being that the examples given keep referring to the "pro" guys that we all would like to be, but realistically won't be. That means we're all in "the other market".

I think all the folks in this "other market" who have skills and experience, and want to make money, wish there were a third market, where those that don't could play. Maybe there used to be (ex. the garage). But the world's changed. The crappy players have snuck into "the other market" and they're gumming up the works. What hasn't changed is the "pro" market.

I'm pretty sure that nobody here is playing in the "pro" level. The Foo Fighters aren't worried if anybody here plays for free. You aren't competing to play a gig at the same venues they play at. Or for radio slots. Or for CD sales. Replace "Foo Fighters" with a name of a national act in your genre, and the example is the same.

[wades_keys]

If you truly did not mean to belittle those who have not had the opportunity to pursue formal education, than I apologize for ascribing negative intent to you. However, your admonishment to go back and re-read the post leads me to think that you should re-read it as well.

 

 

Do you not believe that those that choose to strive for excellence, by obtaining musical educations and putting the long hours required to become professional should have a chance at earning a living?

Self-taught is still an education, right?

 

The best get that way through dedication, respect for their elders (such that you will be willing to learn from those that came before you), and hard work.

Never once mentioned music school or formal education here....

 

That is delusional thinking at best, and quite frankly disrespectful to those dedicated practitioners and academics that are truly at the heart of the information industry.

Note the use of the conjuction "AND".

 

I see this attitude a lot in the software community as well; there are those that have learned how to program without studying the core principles of comp sci.. These folks often convince themselves that they are free of academic constraints, and therefore able to revolutionize the indusstry.

I'm not sure what problem you have with this statement.

 

Those that teach themselves CAN strive for excellence, but with precious few exceptions that involves careful study of those that have come before you.

 

How many people can truly "hunt and peck" their way into making listenable music, while having no concept of chords, harmony, song structure?

 

How many people can truly write a memorable song without having listened and learned from other memorable songs?

 

Whether this is obtained by ear or through formal training is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, which is: there are no shortcuts.

 

Without dedication and some form of study, one will not be able to make quality music or quality computer programs.

 

I am a largely self-taught programmer and musician by the way.

 

There are a lot of lazy wannabe's and posers out there that want the glory, but don't have the guts and discipline to get there.

[fenderbender66]

What else in life has a 'perceived' value, that isn't a commodity or resource?

 

 

I've been reading this debate with great interest, as someone who has recently joined a band (cover/original) that is contemplating taking gigs for free (or beer/food). We are weekend warriors and don't plan on making much out of it other than to have fun playing out. It's not my band, and I'm the new guy, so I don't feel I'm in a position to dictate one way or the other in the matter.

 

To the above quote: what is the value, exactly, of your music? What is the value of art in general?

Good music/bad music is all in the ears of the listener. You may hate a song I love and vice versa. Someone may not really even care about music so much. So how can you put a value on that?

I think the "value" of music has declined because now you can buy a song for $0.99 and not really make the connection to the long hours that went into creating the album that that one song came from.

[Janx]

Self-taught is still an education, right? Never once mentioned music school or formal education here.... Note the use of the conjuction "AND". I am a largely self-taught programmer and musician by the way.

I think the real gist of what Wade was originally saying, is that there are some folks who learn a little about a topic, and think they are "experts", and furthermore try to put down those who are actually experienced as "the establishment". These kids make the problem worse, by putting their "craft" on a pedestal, and proclaiming it quality. The problem is, it isn't. Because they don't have the experience, be it through self-teaching, schooling, and just actually doing the work. And it fills the marketplace, dilluting the quality level.

I think that's wade's real point. Kids who don't actually know anything (or know the bare minimum) are glutting the marketplace with cheap alternatives that aren't as good. The problem is hiring agents don't know or care about the difference.

[wades_keys]

I think the real gist of what Wade was originally saying, is that there are some folks who learn a little about a topic, and think they are "experts", and furthermore try to put down those who are actually experienced as "the establishment". These kids make the problem worse, by putting their "craft" on a pedestal, and proclaiming it quality. The problem is, it isn't. Because they don't have the experience, be it through self-teaching, schooling, and just actually doing the work. And it fills the marketplace, dilluting the quality level. I think that's wade's real point. Kids who don't actually know anything (or know the bare minimum) are glutting the marketplace with cheap alternatives that aren't as good. The problem is hiring agents don't know or care about the difference.

 

Thank you.

 

You're in software engineering; no doubt you've dealt with this mentality.

[rorylawford]

Your post in question included this:

 

Self-taught is still an education, right?

 

 

Do you not see your own defense is directly contradicting your own words for which I called you on?

 

However I will concede that I may have read further into your post than you truly intended, but your word choices left your intent open to such interpretation.

[Lee Knight]

Here's my take on all this...

Giving away your music does nothing to the market. Positive or negative. No impact. It doesn't devalue it. If you're giving it away, more than likely it isn't earning any money for the one who is contracting your services.

This is the real crux of the matter.

If they were making money off of you doing what you do, they'd pay you, because there would be competition. And someone would come along that earns more money for the guy contracting your services, so he'd charge more, and there'd be guys undercutting you as well...

... and someone would have to make a choice how best to earn the most money. Hire the cheaper, or the more expensive. And that would be a healthy market.

But see... that isn't happening. Nobody is making money with your live music anymore. So it isn't worth anything as far as $$$ goes. But if you are making money doing it, you can bet the guy who is hiring you is too. And good for you.

You guys are looking for a reason when it's right there. Live music does not draw like it used to.

[toddkuen]

... I now realize the true value of well written software. ...

 

 

Music and software differ in this critical respect - when the airline pilot pushes the flap controller "professionally written software" makes sure that (most of the time) the flaps do what they are supposed to - irrespective of how the music playing somewhere makes the pilot or the passengers feel. The fact that you don't die means the software was well written.

[Janx]

I've been reading this debate with great interest, as someone who has recently joined a band (cover/original) that is contemplating taking gigs for free (or beer/food). We are weekend warriors and don't plan on making much out of it other than to have fun playing out. It's not my band, and I'm the new guy, so I don't feel I'm in a position to dictate one way or the other in the matter.

 

 

 

I'm a software programmer by trade. I get paid decently for it (though I'd argue below industry average). I'm good at what I do.

 

I also, at times, fix PCs on the side. I charge $25 an hour. It's less than my corporate job pays. I met a guy who charges $75 an hour, so I know I could charge more. I charge what I charge because I don't provide a warranty, and often the folks I help aren't rich, for whom "Geek Squad" is a rip-off. I don't do it for free, because every hour I'm helping them, is an hour I could be having fun or spending time with my wife. My time is valuable enough to pay for. I'm not an idiot, so I know to charge something. I'm not greedy, so I don't charge a lot. If I got laid off, you can bet my rates would increase, and I'd change how I do business (I work by word of mouth).

 

 

I think the problem is about the ethics of bringing a low-cost/low quality product into the market, given the impact it has on existing products. It is certainly a viable strategy, but does it make it right? After shopping for computer parts last weekend*, I'm convinced that the average buyer is NOT aware of the difference in quality in things. They see a price tag, and the general description of a product, and think they're the same, but one's cheaper.

 

The result is, through psychology of pricing, the majority of customers will buy the cheaper item nearly every time.

 

*I had to help a friend build a Network Attached Storage system. I showed them the basic $150 NAS box + $100 1TB drives from a known brand. They found the $50 box with chinese writing on the box . It didn't quite match, including the missing drive mirroring support, which was the whole point of the exercise. But they didn't see that. They saw the price tag on a doo-hickey that looked pretty much the same.

[wades_keys]

My software uses algorithms, mathematics and statistical principles I have developed which could easily provide me with a PhD were I interested in one. How do I know this? I have ghost written critical parts of others PhD's (mostly out of sympathy as it turns out).

 

Then you have clearly learned core principles.

 

I don't see why you have a problem with my argument.

 

Again, I never once mentioned school or formal education as a requirement.

 

You guys are attaching your bias to a word or two in my post that is triggering a response in you, and therefore failing to see the true meaning that is right there in front of you.

 

Janx got it, straightaway.

[toddkuen]

As to "free" music or software or anything else...

Sometimes I provide free software with a purpose - like a free bag of heroin - its a way to build up a customer base or open a new market if you are smart about how you go about it.

Sometimes I provide free software because I screwed up.

Sometimes free can be used to build up a "dependence" which can be exploited or leveraged later...

There are may "free" or low cost PDF software tools available. I tell (or recommend) my customers that they should try them first to see if they will solve the problem - if it does great - and, like the free bag of heroin, it builds good will to be redeemed in the future. Maybe they will call back next year when they have bigger problems.

"Free" music can provide the artist an "education", a way to develop production skills, a way to "test the market" for a particular sound, etc.

In the "apprentice/journeyman" model you do a lot for "free" - the purpose being the mentor teaching you something. It takes a lot of work to build up serious numbers of hours performing and you do what you have to do.

No one generally provides anything for free without some underlying purpose - if you can't see the purpose you may need to look harder...

[Lee Knight]

Really? Demand is up around here - more people than ever are going out drinking on weekends. Competition is tight, but the gigs are out there. What do pros have? Chops and experience - don't kid yourself if you think you can compete with a guy like Dave Ernspiker (RIP) who gigged five nights a week and could easily share the stage with pro players like Shawn Lane.

 

 

Demand may be up in your area. But it is a different world than it was just a few years ago, my friend. I admire your love of the craft of being a musician. I do too. And that is a massive part of why folks don't crave live music like they used to. The bar is lower than it used to be.

 

It is.

 

But there are many other factors as well that contribute to the fact that less people enjoy live music than they used to. It is a changing world. And interests are changing with it.

 

Can guys go out and earn a living performing music? Absolutely! And your way is the way. Be great. But giving music away won't effect the market near as much as shoddy musicianship, lack of understanding an audience... and changing tastes that have already adversely effected that demand.

[wades_keys]

Can guys go out and earn a living performing music? Absolutely! And your way is the way. Be great. But giving music away won't effect the market near as much as shoddy musicianship, lack of understanding an audience... and changing tastes that have already adversely effected that demand.

 

I agree with all of that.

[SpaceNorman]

 

IAll of these "Pro"s have a support structure and gatekeeper to keep the system going. That support structure is unions, agents, and organizations.

 

 

There's a bit of profoundness to this observation. Perhaps it's that we musicians are so emotionally tied to the music we make - be that the songs we write, the material we perform, the bands we nuture and grow - that we've lost sight of the forest for the trees.

 

I think everybody would concur that at one time there was a viable market in which musicians working at the local level could in fact make a "professional" living. However {censored} happened, things changed and that's pretty much a thing of the past.

 

The support structure that used to exist (unions, agents, etc.) were the first to recognize there's little or no money to be made in serving the market segment that most of us sweat in - and disappeared long ago. For unions and agents - it's a pure dollars and cents decision - unlike us musicians who can't help by have an emotional attachment to our work.

 

Maybe we're just slow learners eh?

[Janx]

Here's my take on all this... Giving away your music does nothing to the market. Positive or negative. No impact. It doesn't devalue it. If you're giving it away, more than likely it isn't earning any money for the one who is contracting your services. This is the real crux of the matter. If they were making money off of you doing what you do, they'd pay you, because there would be competition. And someone would come along that earns more money for the guy contracting your services, so he'd charge more, and there'd be guys undercutting you as well... ... and someone would have to make a choice how best to earn the most money. Hire the cheaper, or the more expensive. And that would be a healthy market. But see... that isn't happening. Nobody is making money with your live music anymore. So it isn't worth anything as far as $$$ goes. But if you are making money doing it, you can bet the guy who is hiring you is too. And good for you. You guys are looking for a reason when it's right there. Live music does not draw like it used to.

 

 

I think I agree with this. I have a philosophy, that if you can find a good argument for, and a good one against, and you can't truly measure either one, then they're probably close enough to equal to neutralize each other. Lee's opening point smacks of this (there's exceptions, of course).

 

The kids giving their songs away for free, are probably not hurting BlueStrat*. They're in the wrong genre, and it's crap. Anybody listening can hear the difference.

 

However, 4 rich dudes who decide to relive their youth by forming a rock band and playing for free down at the local place that BlueStrat plays at, are potentially hurting him. It's very possible that these guys are "good enough" that they don't suck. And they're rich, they've got friends to show up, and they don't need the money. To them, playing the gig is a manner of "hosting the party" at the local pub. Every time these guys have a party, they are depriving BlueStrat an opportunity to play. The more of them there are, the more competition increases for a few gig slots. Since BS only plays for money, he's getting hurt.

 

*BlueStrat seems to be my pet example of a good musician who gets paid to play. No offense is intended.

 

To me, this argument has some similarity to the "piracy" problem. If somebody pirate's a BS song, does it hurt him? There's a reasonable probability, that the pirate would not have purchased the song. So it's not exactly a lost sale. It is a lost opportunity, but that's different. How do you measure that? I'm not even trying to claim any "free exposure through piracy." Just the simple fact that a pirate, or a shoplifter probably would have gone without, or stolen it. Purchasing was never on the table.

 

This is probably why the point of "music isn't food" was brought up. It's not a necessity, and thus isn't valued as highly by most people. And that seems to be true of all the arguments listed thus far.

[toddkuen]

Then you have clearly learned core principles. I don't see why you have a problem with my argument. ....

 

 

We disagree on a couple of points I think...

 

- I am arguing that "dedicated practitioners and academics" operate the status quo and are generally the last place to look for innovation.

 

- I think that talent plays a big roll - you did not address this.

 

- I argue the "apprentice/journeyman" model is today replaced by "dedicated practitioners and academics" - which is not as good.

 

Spotting talent is hard when you have 5-year olds playing guitar on youtube. A mentor typically won't waste time with a "flash in the pan"...

 

I have argued in past posts on other threads (something about running paperclips over the back of circuit boards in cheap musical keyboards - I have forgotten the name of what they call this) that there is a general "looking down on" those that start out without formal education or training.

 

Its easy to discourage someone who is talented by your arguments.

 

My view is that you encourage everybody - no matter how awful. People generally weed themselves out quickly if they don't belong. Without this you end up weed out the shy but talented...

[fenderbender66]

I'm a software programmer by trade. I get paid decently for it (though I'd argue below industry average). I'm good at what I do. I also, at times, fix PCs on the side. I charge $25 an hour. It's less than my corporate job pays. I met a guy who charges $75 an hour, so I know I could charge more. I charge what I charge because I don't provide a warranty, and often the folks I help aren't rich, for whom "Geek Squad" is a rip-off. I don't do it for free, because every hour I'm helping them, is an hour I could be having fun or spending time with my wife. My time is valuable enough to pay for. I'm not an idiot, so I know to charge something. I'm not greedy, so I don't charge a lot. If I got laid off, you can bet my rates would increase, and I'd change how I do business (I work by word of mouth). I think the problem is about the ethics of bringing a low-cost/low quality product into the market, given the impact it has on existing products. It is certainly a viable strategy, but does it make it right? After shopping for computer parts last weekend*, I'm convinced that the average buyer is NOT aware of the difference in quality in things. They see a price tag, and the general description of a product, and think they're the same, but one's cheaper. The result is, through psychology of pricing, the majority of customers will buy the cheaper item nearly every time. *I had to help a friend build a Network Attached Storage system. I showed them the basic $150 NAS box + $100 1TB drives from a known brand. They found the $50 box with chinese writing on the box . It didn't quite match, including the missing drive mirroring support, which was the whole point of the exercise. But they didn't see that. They saw the price tag on a doo-hickey that looked pretty much the same.

 

 

Good approach, and one I'm in favor of. I did mention this to the band and they agreed (kind of), but again, it's not my band, I'm the new guy, and I'm not booking the gigs, so I really don't feel like I'm in a position to push the issue.

The money is not important to me personally; however, I do see the point in charging at least something for the sake of everyone else out there trying to get gigs and be successful, whatever success means to them. The question then becomes, how much do you charge, and does free food/beer constitute payment?

[fenderbender66]

However, 4 rich dudes who decide to relive their youth by forming a rock band and playing for free down at the local place that BlueStrat plays at, are potentially hurting him. It's very possible that these guys are "good enough" that they don't suck. And they're rich, they've got friends to show up, and they don't need the money. To them, playing the gig is a manner of "hosting the party" at the local pub. Every time these guys have a party, they are depriving BlueStrat an opportunity to play. The more of them there are, the more competition increases for a few gig slots. Since BS only plays for money, he's getting hurt.

 

 

While far from rich and not reliving our youth, this is the situation I'm finding myself in with this new band, and this resonated deeply for me. I probably will push the issue with the rest of them if we're looking at gigs where other bands regularly play.

Thanks for the clarity.

[Austincowbell]

I hate to be Captain Logic over here, but do we really NEED an analogy? It seems like it boils down to one simple question:

 

Does an artist giving away an EP impact your ability to get paid for an EP or record? In my opinion, the answer is "no". If you record a demo CD its going to be difficult to get much money for it because its a demo CD. If you record a full length CD and package it nicely you will most likely be able to sell it for $10 each if your music is good enough and enough people hear about your band. How would they hear about your band? Well..... maybe 6 months ago someone gave them a free demo EP.