Jump to content

Live Music: the main deal now?


Recommended Posts

  • Members


I STILL say that popular music "devolved" in the early 90s through today. It became more amateurish on every level: melody, lyrics, musicianship.


THERE WERE, AND ARE, EXCEPTIONS. But I am talking about the "typical" song, the typical band you'd hear on Clear Channel Radio.

 

Perhaps it did. But thats not necessarily a bad thing---Punk was exactly the same back in the 70s and that was an absolute breath of musical fresh air :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 

eeehh.. Because you have heard about the record and want to check it out and so you spend a few calories downloading it. You then listen to it for a while and find out you don't like it and it ends up collecting digital dust in your ever expanding collection of downloaded music.


 

 

And if you do that enough times, you get a letter from RIAA attorneys saying they are gonna sue you for $750 for each song on your hard drive, or you can just pay them $4,500 and they’ll give you a pass.

 

That is the dirty little secret about all these “music stealers” out there. They are doing, in the privacy of their own home, the same thing they do when they put on a pair of headphones at a listening station at a record store, except it is technically illegal.

 

Actually it isn’t. It is not illegal to download, nor is it illegal to have the music on your hard drive. It is only illegal to upload. This is why every person the RIAA has brought charges against is someone from whom they were able to download.

 

I don’t make copyrighted material available for others to download. It is against the law.

 

Let’s face it folks. This is all arbitrary stuff and has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. It is like playing a game of Monopoly. You can and can’t do things because they are written in the rules. And the rules say you can download, but you can’t upload. And the technicality that allows “them” to extort funds from you if you upload is, and I am not kidding here, that you do not know who is uploading, so they “could” be someone who will make copies and sell them.

 

It’s a game and nothing more. Play smart and you win. Make a mistake and you could land on Boardwalk with a hotel on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm not a big one for "protecting the songwriter's rights!".

 

I know most music types disagree but being a performer, I'm happy that everything has such easy access. As for my own originals... if somebody plays/grabs them, it's OK with me.

 

Years ago a song would be declared PD (Public Dopmain) after a few decades. But those money grubbers in the biz decided to change it so that now we NEVER get a free redo/shot at these newer songs.

 

Since they(powers that BE) decided to "lock-up" the music cabinet, I'm all too happy when I see others kicking in those doors.

 

That's just my take... not asking anybody else to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

As for my own originals... if somebody plays/grabs them, it's OK with me.


 

 

 

What would you think is someone like, oh, say Eric Clapton recorded one of your songs and his album went platinum (like many of them do)? Would you still be happy with nothing?

 

That's pretty much what happened to the guys who wrote "Hound Dog", etc back when Elvis and other 50s icons made hits out of their songs and they didn't see a dime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Perhaps it did. But thats not necessarily a bad thing---Punk was exactly the same back in the 70s and that was an absolute breath of musical fresh air
:thu:

 

well, i don't think so. but that doesn't mean you're wrong, just that we like different stuff. rock on with whatever you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Punk was ...an absolute breath of musical fresh air
:thu:

 

Having angry 6th graders beat on pots and pans and oil barrels with sticks, while shouting a LOT about how much they hate their parents and the system, would be...different...but I wouldn't call it musical.

 

Then there was Nirvana and the grunge movement where it didn't matter if you could actually play your instrument at any level greater than "a few quick lessons".

 

But yes...whatever gives you an emotional lift...that's the stuff for you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

What would you think is someone like, oh, say Eric Clapton recorded one of your songs and his album went platinum (like many of them do)? Would you still be happy with nothing?


That's pretty much what happened to the guys who wrote "Hound Dog", etc back when Elvis and other 50s icons made hits out of their songs and they didn't see a dime.

 

 

It would sting a little, but then, that's business in a big way. A friend of mine has saved, collectively, over a billion dollars for Boeing (he's a corporate attorney that reviews contracts). He got paid an annual salary for working hard at his job and it was a tiny fraction of that amount. He felt no sting whatsoever.

 

I see songwriting as a different thing than "work", just as I see performing on stage as a different thing from "work". I see setup and breakdown and some practicing and rehearsal as work. That's what I feel I am actually being paid for at gigs.

 

If I wrote a song that made it big, the flip side would be that I would be elated that MY song made it big. If nothing else, I can put it on my resume for getting that commercial jingle writer job.

 

Song writing just doesn't add that much intrinsic value, frankly. Neither does the ability to play an instrument or walk upright. The buyer puts the value on it by agreeing to pay a certain amount for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It would sting a little, but then, that's business in a big way. A friend of mine has saved, collectively, over a billion dollars for Boeing (he's a corporate attorney that reviews contracts). He got paid an annual salary for working hard at his job and it was a tiny fraction of that amount. He felt no sting whatsoever.


I see songwriting as a different thing than "work", just as I see performing on stage as a different thing from "work". I see setup and breakdown and some practicing and rehearsal as work. That's what I feel I am actually being paid for at gigs.


If I wrote a song that made it big, the flip side would be that I would be elated that MY song made it big. If nothing else, I can put it on my resume for getting that commercial jingle writer job.


Song writing just doesn't add that much intrinsic value, frankly. Neither does the ability to play an instrument or walk upright. The buyer puts the value on it by agreeing to pay a certain amount for it.

 

Neither the buyer's assigned value nor intrinsic value (perhaps the most subjective thing in the universe) matters a hill of beans to this discussion. According to the law, the writer of a song is entitled to 9.1 cents per song per copy sold. That ain't small potatoes when dealing with millions of records.

 

I just get a rise out of people who claim not to be concerned with money as long as none is involved. I think most of them would sing a different tune if a song of theirs was on a platinum record.

 

And why on earth you'd pass up the money from a song on a hit record but use it as a reference for the peanuts you'd make writing jingles is beyong me and strikes me as just insane. Or am I missing something? (wouldn't be the first time):wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

If I wrote a song that made it big, the flip side would be that I would be elated that MY song made it big. If nothing else, I can put it on my resume for getting that commercial jingle writer job.

 

 

If you actually wrote a hit single and someone else made millions of dollars off it while you made nothing, you'd believe exactly none of what you wrote above...and you'd have every right to feel that way...and every right to be properly compensated...and I'd be happy for you for collecting your due.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Neither the buyer's assigned value nor intrinsic value (perhaps the most subjective thing in the universe) matters a hill of beans to this discussion. According to the law, the writer of a song is entitled to 9.1 cents per song per copy sold. That ain't small potatoes when dealing with millions of records.


I just get a rise out of people who claim not to be concerned with money as long as none is involved. I think most of them would sing a different tune if a song of theirs was on a platinum record.


And why on earth you'd pass up the money from a song on a hit record but use it as a reference for the peanuts you'd make writing jingles is beyong me and strikes me as just insane. Or am I missing something? (wouldn't be the first time)
:wave:

I consider making money with music the same as making money playing softball. It all comes from that perspective. My brother-in-law is worth close to a billion. He made his money by producing something tangible. You cannot copy it. Well, you can, but the quality difference is obvious - his items are made of precious metals.

 

Before the concept of recording, musicians made money by performing. Few made money doing it. They did it for fun and those that did it for a living played covers - Beethoven, Handel, etc. Note for note... And how much of that was written under contract (Handels Royal Fireworks as just one example).

 

Then Technology allowed a musician to perform once and sell that performance to the world. The money was so huge an entire industry of middle men and marketers came from it.

 

Technology, being the great equalizer, has brought us full circle. We are back where we were a century ago. You want to make money with music, perform - Kinda like pro basketball players, now that I think of it. If you get REALLY big, you can endorse a tool of the trade.

 

Music is something man has created since the garden. People should have no more claim to a connection of notes any more than your plumber should have a claim to his ability to get your pipes fixed.

 

And, just as radio killed the rock star, MP3's and IPods have killed the entire recording industry (notice I said RECORDING and not MUSIC). Recorded music is pretty much nothing more than a commodity - something you listen to when you do something else - ride the bus, ride the elevator, work on your car, etc. It does not have the value it did in the 40's through 70's.

 

Regarding recorded music, the copyright laws will not survive for the same reason prohibition did not survive.

 

One last thing - saying something is "the law" has no impact on me whatsoever. I learned in the late 60's that what is moral is not necessarily legal and what is legal is not necessarily moral. I killed my TV in 1997 and I, even at 53, still "question authority". In this nation it always comes up wanting - a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

If you actually wrote a hit single and someone else made millions of dollars off it while you made nothing, you'd believe exactly none of what you wrote above...and you'd have every right to feel that way...and every right to be properly compensated...and I'd be happy for you for collecting your due.

 

 

But would it have made anything if someone else had performed it? IOW, was it the song, or the performer that made it big. I submit that it was the performer. They could have chosen from a myriad of songs and had the same results.

 

In an interview Carol Kaye once said she and some other session musicians had come up with a formula from which they felt it would be easy to come up with hit songs. I think what makes a song a hit is who is singing it. People connect with people above all else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

But would it have made anything if someone else had performed it? IOW, was it the song, or the performer that made it big. I submit that it was the performer. They could have chosen from a myriad of songs and had the same results.


In an interview Carol Kaye once said she and some other session musicians had come up with a formula from which they felt it would be easy to come up with hit songs. I think what makes a song a hit is who is singing it. People connect with people above all else.

Well, were that really true, that it is the artist, not the song, then every song on the artists CD would be a hit, right?

I think one has to accept the synergy between a well written song and a great performance of said song by a talented artist.

:wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

But would it have made anything if someone else had performed it? IOW, was it the song, or the performer that made it big. I submit that it was the performer. They could have chosen from a myriad of songs and had the same results.


In an interview Carol Kaye once said she and some other session musicians had come up with a formula from which they felt it would be easy to come up with hit songs. I think what makes a song a hit is who is singing it. People connect with people above all else.

 

 

 

Whether a song is a hit or not is irrlelevant. All it has to do is get on a CD that contains one. Los Lonely Boys had a huge hit with "How Far Is Heaven". But there were about 9 other songs on that CD. Even though few people can name even one, they each paid the same royalty from sales to the writers as "Heaven" did.

 

Incidentally, this is why I have mixed feelings about digital downloads of songs. With a record or a CD, you get exposed to all of a band's songs, and many you may come to like even though you might not at first. With singles downloading, the B sides and deep cuts don't even get purchased, so all that gets picked up are the hits, encouraging even more generic copycat songwriting.

 

Plus a songwriter can write 10 songs and if one is a hit, he will get the sales royalty for all 10. If only the hit sells, his income will be drastically reduced, allowing him less time to devote to music, while at the same time be under increasing pressure to keep producing hits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Music is something man has created since the garden. People should have no more claim to a connection of notes any more than your plumber should have a claim to his ability to get your pipes fixed.

 

 

RobRoy,

 

Since a "collection of notes" is basically an invention, an idea, that a person comes up with. A copyright is similar to a patent. It allows people to profit from their ideas.

 

Considering your brother-in-law, do you think he has no legal right to his idea that he sells as a product? If anyone could copy it, say with modern laser-measuring and 3D fabrication technology (assuming they had financing to buy the "raw materials")...is that just his tough luck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

RobRoy,


Since a "collection of notes" is basically an invention, an idea, that a person comes up with. A copyright is similar to a patent. It allows people to profit from their ideas.


Considering your brother-in-law, do you think he has no legal right to his idea that he sells as a product? If anyone could copy it, say with modern laser-measuring and 3D fabrication technology (assuming they had financing to buy the "raw materials")...is that just his tough luck?

 

 

No. But it is difficult to do, and the material is expensive. One of the reasons western civilization has progressed so rapidly is that it protects the inventor of a thing. This incents people to bother to invent things. Music is different. It is something everyone does to one degree or another. It is art. Art should not have the same protections as "intelectually created" items. IMO

 

IOW, musicians get paid to create and perform their music, or perform other peoples music. Beyond that, they can capitalize on the fame they receive from producing a popular (notice I didn't say "good") product. It is what professional athletes do. They get paid to play and their fame brings them offers to endorse products for money. If Michael Jordan comes up with a new way to dunk, it doesn't mean he should be able to copyright it and charge people a royalty fee every time they do it in public.

 

The Wright brothers tried to patent flying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, were that really true, that it is the artist, not the song, then every song on the artists CD would be a hit, right?

I think one has to accept the synergy between a well written song and a great performance of said song by a talented artist.

:wave:

 

To some degree I agree. I LOVE Cold Blood's rendition of "I Just Want to Make Love to You". So give the song writer a couple hundred bucks for his time.

 

OTOH, some songs are just really, really bad, no matter who does them.

 

But how long did it take Led Zeppelin to write Stairway to Heaven? Myth has it that it was less than an hour. But the payment was huge. But it wasn't the song that was great. Read the words. What made it great was the arrangement and the performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

But how long did it take Led Zeppelin to write Stairway to Heaven? Myth has it that it was less than an hour.

 

 

RobRoy,

 

I don't think the hourly labor involved is the key measure of value of a product or service.

 

The value is set by the customer: what they are willing to pay for the item or service.

 

This is strongly influenced by competition. So, things that can be produced effortlessly are easily available from many vendors, and are generally sold for pennies; things that are hard to make, and scarce, sell for a LOT.

 

Are wonderful songs easy to make, or hard? Are they rare? I say, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

RobRoy,


I don't think the hourly labor involved is the key measure of value of a product or service.


The value is set by the customer: what they are willing to pay for the item or service.


This is strongly influenced by competition. So, things that can be produced effortlessly are generally sold for pennies; things that are hard to make, and scarce, sell for a LOT.


Are wonderful songs easy to make, or hard? Are they rare? I say, yes.

 

But it is the performance that made the song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I submit that it was the performer.

 

 

You wouldn't feel that way if you were actually not being paid for your mega-hit song.

 

 

They could have chosen from a myriad of songs and had the same results.

 

 

You wouldn't feel that way if you were actually not being paid for your mega-hit song.

 

I think both songwriter and performer matter, and both should be appropriately compensated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

OK... so the collective H-C opinion is "Live Music is Dying & so is Recorded Music"

 

Nah.

 

The way I see it, the market for little pieces of plastic is rapidly diminishing and the club scene is in the crapper.

 

What does that mean for musicians? Lower production costs, better artistic control, more access to distribution and the ability to make a living without a record deal, radio airplay or "local buzz"

 

I see a future where bands sell their tunes online (yes, I know some do it now...more will in the future, and they'll do it better.) And they'll perform live on the net (Video will be as cheap as audio pretty soon. )

 

Maybe your band can't draw 200 people to a smokey, smelly pisshole in a bad part of town to pay a $10 cover and $5 for watered-down beer. But if you're good enough, you might be able to find 200 people in a world-wide audience willing to PayPal 5 bucks each for a live PPV concert in 5.1 stereo.

 

It could happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Scafeets,

 

That's a great vision. Maybe it can happen!...never say never.

 

I think of songs as little "packets of pleasure". Little doses of sound that enter through your ears and cause a smile and happiness or contentment.

 

People will pay money for this pleasure...IF that's the only way to get the songs.

 

But it's only going to get easier to pass these things around.

 

Once I sell an MP3, it's "out there", and the "better" it is ( i.e., the more pleasure it typically produces)...the faster it will be copied and shared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

To some degree I agree. I LOVE Cold Blood's rendition of "I Just Want to Make Love to You". So give the song writer a couple hundred bucks for his time.


OTOH, some songs are just really, really bad, no matter who does them.


But how long did it take Led Zeppelin to write Stairway to Heaven? Myth has it that it was less than an hour. But the payment was huge. But it wasn't the song that was great. Read the words. What made it great was the arrangement and the performance.

 

I think you are missing my point here. A singer who is not also a songwriter is no different than an actor who is not a writer. They are a talented entity, but since they do not generate their own content, they have nothing to sell an audience. That is the synergistic relationship...a performer and a creator of material to perform.

 

Also, the example of Stairway is not particularly good, since it was a 'closed loop' creation. The ones who wrote it also performed it. Not many recorded covers of that song that made it big, to that I will agree, but by the same token, it was a Led Zep song recorded by Led Zep.

 

But take a great song, like Gershwin's 'Summertime'...how many successful versions have been recorded over the years? A well crafted song that touches people transcends the performance. The value of that is, IMHO, far greater than any one version...or any artist's interpretation.

:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think you are missing my point here. A singer who is not also a songwriter is no different than an actor who is not a writer. They are a talented entity, but since they do not generate their own content, they have nothing to sell an audience. That is the synergistic relationship...a performer and a creator of material to perform.


Also, the example of Stairway is not particularly good, since it was a 'closed loop' creation. The ones who wrote it also performed it. Not many recorded covers of that song that made it big, to that I will agree, but by the same token, it was a Led Zep song recorded by Led Zep.


But take a great song, like Gershwin's 'Summertime'...how many successful versions have been recorded over the years? A well crafted song that touches people transcends the performance. The value of that is, IMHO, far greater than any one version...or any artist's interpretation.

:cool:

Oh man, Summertime is my favorite from P&B. I have the Ray Charles / Cleo Lane vinyl set of the whole "opera". The Gershwin bros are really a genre all their own.

 

Regarding your point, you are correct. I am really squishy on my position on what writers of songs should make because it is so hard to quantify. I used to be a COBOL programmer and a real issue was that some programmers put out literally 10 times the work of others, but they certainly did not get 10 times the pay. Large pieces of art in office tower lobbies cost a LOT because, ignoring the "artistic vision" from which they come, they take a LOT of work to create. It is as though the artistic idea from which they come is merely the artists cost for admission. The works are also contracted - again, like Handel’s Royal Fireworks.

 

There are so many models for paying and not paying song writers because there is such a disparity of quality and, in the end, it is not a tangible thing. The performer doesn't have that problem. If you want to experience one of their performances, you will need to entice them to perform.

 

If you want a recording of a performance, it looks like the 21st century paradigm makes it something that is free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...