Live Music: the main deal now?

[RobRoy]

 

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.

 

When my kids first exposed me to Napster, I never used it. But I found it interesting. Then I happened on Kazaa lite a few years back. It was amazing. I remember asking my mother (in her late 70's) for the name of a song that she would consider one of her favorites, but that she had not heard in decades. I don't remember the name of the song, but it was nothing I had ever heard of before.

 

While she stood next to me at my computer, I searched it and got five hits. I immediately started downloading a 128 version and within 10 seconds started playing it. Tears came to her eyes.

 

It was a real eye opener for me. It was a very emotional experience.

 

I then realized, after reading articles from musicians both pro and con regarding downloading, that I began to form an opinion. The most compelling (the first few pages anyway) was from Kurt Colbanes (sp)? widow from the band HOLE. She made a strong argument for downloading to your hearts content.

 

I eventually formed an opinion on what the future may hold:

 

Instead of a few megastars and a bunch of one hit wonders now working at car washes, with the record companies using them up like rental cars at Hertz, we would have thousands of people making a reasonable living by performing and selling their recordings, t-shirts, etc. online and at gigs. It would take work, but the musicians would be doing it because they really do love it as a job and are not just buying a “pop star lottery ticket”.

 

Meanwhile, the record companies would become a mere shadow of what they once were.

 

We are seeing that happen. Not exactly the way I predicted, but pretty close. But it didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out it would go that way.

 

Bottom line – P2P is BAD for record companies, but good for artists. And they are not bad because people are getting music for free that they would otherwise pay for. It is bad because of the public’s perception of recorded music in general. The coupling of many technologies – p2p, ipods and computers with enough space to store every song an individual would ever want ten times over, and the ability to make copies of hours worth of music in a few minutes has turned recorded music into a commodity. An individual recorded song has almost no value.

 

Live music, on the other hand, will rule, when it comes to what people will actually pay for. And “small time” artists can exploit that as many here have pointed out – like recording a gig and selling copies, right there, to people that have a desire for a copy of a “concert” they actually attended!

 

The technology opens up doors that many are not even seeing, but it is sort of like the invention of plastic. First it was used to replace other items, and often cheaper and with more durability. But soon we found ourselves making things of plastic that could not have been economically feasible otherwise – like the cassette tape.

 

Same is true with recorded music.

 

We have no idea how some are going to come up with ways to exploit the technology for profit, but it’s fun to watch the scramble. And some will win BIG.

 

One thing’s for sure: Trying to stop people from making their own personal copies for free is not the “progressive” course. In the long run, it is like trying to stop a flood after the dam has already broken.

 

We live in very interesting times.

[GlennGalen]

 

...We have no idea how some are going to come up with ways to exploit the technology for profit, but it’s fun to watch the scramble. And some will win BIG. One thing’s for sure: Trying to stop people from making their own personal copies for free is not the “progressive” course. In the long run, it is like trying to stop a flood after the dam has already broken. We live in very interesting times.

 

 

Good points, and I pretty much agree with everything you say.

 

I also think it will be like the era before recorded music in this way: there will be many more artists who are popular with a somewhat small total audience, instead of a mega star band with a half billion fans.

 

These will be the artists who are great marketers in addition to creating music that give people that emotional lift reliably.

[Poker99]

Live rock music scene is dying in my local area too.

 

[BlueStrat]

When my kids first exposed me to Napster, I never used it. But I found it interesting. Then I happened on Kazaa lite a few years back. It was amazing. I remember asking my mother (in her late 70's) for the name of a song that she would consider one of her favorites, but that she had not heard in decades. I don't remember the name of the song, but it was nothing I had ever heard of before. While she stood next to me at my computer, I searched it and got five hits. I immediately started downloading a 128 version and within 10 seconds started playing it. Tears came to her eyes. It was a real eye opener for me. It was a very emotional experience. I then realized, after reading articles from musicians both pro and con regarding downloading, that I began to form an opinion. The most compelling (the first few pages anyway) was from Kurt Colbanes (sp)? widow from the band HOLE. She made a strong argument for downloading to your hearts content. I eventually formed an opinion on what the future may hold: Instead of a few megastars and a bunch of one hit wonders now working at car washes, with the record companies using them up like rental cars at Hertz, we would have thousands of people making a reasonable living by performing and selling their recordings, t-shirts, etc. online and at gigs. It would take work, but the musicians would be doing it because they really do love it as a job and are not just buying a “pop star lottery ticket”. Meanwhile, the record companies would become a mere shadow of what they once were. We are seeing that happen. Not exactly the way I predicted, but pretty close. But it didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out it would go that way. Bottom line – P2P is BAD for record companies, but good for artists. And they are not bad because people are getting music for free that they would otherwise pay for. It is bad because of the public’s perception of recorded music in general. The coupling of many technologies – p2p, ipods and computers with enough space to store every song an individual would ever want ten times over, and the ability to make copies of hours worth of music in a few minutes has turned recorded music into a commodity. An individual recorded song has almost no value. Live music, on the other hand, will rule, when it comes to what people will actually pay for. And “small time” artists can exploit that as many here have pointed out – like recording a gig and selling copies, right there, to people that have a desire for a copy of a “concert” they actually attended! The technology opens up doors that many are not even seeing, but it is sort of like the invention of plastic. First it was used to replace other items, and often cheaper and with more durability. But soon we found ourselves making things of plastic that could not have been economically feasible otherwise – like the cassette tape. Same is true with recorded music. We have no idea how some are going to come up with ways to exploit the technology for profit, but it’s fun to watch the scramble. And some will win BIG. One thing’s for sure: Trying to stop people from making their own personal copies for free is not the “progressive” course. In the long run, it is like trying to stop a flood after the dam has already broken. We live in very interesting times.

 

All well and good, except that once the profit is taken out of recording, you'll get more and more cheaply produced home recorded crap. It's record companies that produce the stuff that is worth listening to, sonically anyway. Yeah, they're greedy, and have their problems, but the product they put out is far and away better than 99% of DIYs can do. I have lots of DIY CDs given to me that I frankly can't listen to because they're recorded and mixed so poorly.

 

And really, think about it: Bands aren't making money NOW playng live, or far less than they did 25 years ago. What are you seeing now that is evidence that that trend will reverse itself and people will suddenly start shelling out money for local music?

 

Or is it just wishful thinking? ( I know I wish it would happen!)

[Jus10]

 

still have vibrant live music "scenes"... that being said , a lot more bands are looking for work than actually booking work....bob

 

 

 

hi, just felt the need to chime in. this dude is wrong. im sorry to tell you, just because you drive a bus doesnt mean you know "whats up."

 

im 24, and im a strong supporter of my city's local/live music scene.

 

it far from dead.

 

and saying guitar-rock is dead, another complete miss.

 

 

go to a local rock show. if there are none in your community, maybe its your scene thats dead. try a better city.

[Li10]

I prefer CDs to MP3s or digital downloaded media. Then you have the booklet and case and stuff, it's like with the MP3s you're getting the core package while when you buy the CD you're getting the whole complete thing... if you get what I mean.

 

I know I won't stop buying CDs any time soon.

[Active Reasoner]

I agree with RobRoy's take on copyright compensation.

Imagine in the not too distant future:

everytime a songwriter applies for a copyright,

a supercomputer will search through all the copyrighted music,

and compare the songwriters submission

to all the music ever written or recorded.

When this happens, I doubt another copyright will ever be approved.

[BlueStrat]

 

I agree with RobRoy's take on copyright compensation. Imagine in the not too distant future: everytime a songwriter applies for a copyright, a supercomputer will search through all the copyrighted music, and compare the songwriters submission to all the music ever written or recorded. When this happens, I doubt another copyright will ever be approved.

 

 

 

You mean the same 'supercomputers' that can supposedly find fake social security numbers of illegal aliens in 12 hours but can't process a passport for 4 months?

 

Sorry, I don't buy it. Besides, all a copyright registration does is record a work that is already legally copyrightyed once put into tangible form. It doesn't prevent copyright infringement, nor is that it's intent. That's what courts are for. George Harrison found this out when he recorded "My Sweet Lord" and was sued for ripping off (however unintentionally) another copyrighted piece of music, "He's So Fine".

 

With the copyright office getting literally thousands of submissions every day, I wouldn't look for that kind of efficiency from the same people who brought you the IRS.

[daddymack]

I agree with RobRoy's take on copyright compensation. Imagine in the not too distant future: everytime a songwriter applies for a copyright, a supercomputer will search through all the copyrighted music, and compare the songwriters submission to all the music ever written or recorded. When this happens, I doubt another copyright will ever be approved.

 

Strongly disagree. The amazing thing about music and written words is the almost infinte potential of combinations resulting in ear-pleasing results. IMHO, of course...

[Baldrick]

 

Eventually there will be less and less recorded music available, certainly less professionally recorded music. If you can't make money on it...so why do it, other than as a hobby? CD sales will go down over the years, as digital file distribution goes up as the digital devices become the universal medium. The entire recording industry will shrink: studios, engineers, CD manufacturing, distributors, hardware manufacturers. The live concert industry will grow, along with industries that support it: lighting, sound reinforcement, internet-based ticket sales, video display technology.

 

 

So you're saying that in the future musicians will earn no money on recorded music but will earn money on live performance. I can follow your argumentation, but there's only one problem: Your predictions don't seem to fit reality. All over the western world the trend is that live music is decreasing in value and has done so for quite some time. My impression is that it is harder for a musician to get a paid gig now than it has ever been, and that paying gigs pay a lot less than what they used to. If you count in inflation the figures become even more depressing. And I don't see any change in that trend in the immediate future.

 

There are some other factors that play in to the equation:

 

- There is an endless supply of kids who want to be rock stars. A lot of them suck but there's also a lot of good ones. Remember that the generation got electric guitars from their parents and were encouraged to play rock n' roll. In other words there are more musicians today than ever before. In other words more competent musicians and a hell of a lot more incompetent musicians who still want to play gigs.

 

- You don't even have to be a musician to hold a concert these days. Last weekend a went to see an original act. The warm up act was a kid who played Ambient music. This means that he was strumming some strings on a guitar using a metal bar and sent the signal through a few effect boxes. He produced random noise for about half an hour and then got an applause from an audience that clearly seemed to be falling asleep but chose to be polite. Then the brat went of stage with a smug smile on his face, obviously convinced that he was on his way to becoming the next underground cult hero. It's sad, but it takes so little these days to get on a stage and have a musical 'act' that you have an army of posers ready to compete for the live music slots. Many times the club thinks that the posers are more entertaining for the audience than good musicians.

 

- Live bands have more competitors when competing over peoples nights out than ever before. You have DJs, karaoke, stand-up comedy, speed dating, pub-quizes, sports pubs and what not.

 

 

Alright, this is getting a bit lengthy now. Let me finish with the MAIN POINT: The supply of live music acts is increasing explosively and the demand for live music seems to be going down _regardless_ of the price/state of recorded music.

[RobRoy]

All well and good, except that once the profit is taken out of recording, you'll get more and more cheaply produced home recorded crap. It's record companies that produce the stuff that is worth listening to, sonically anyway. Yeah, they're greedy, and have their problems, but the product they put out is far and away better than 99% of DIYs can do. I have lots of DIY CDs given to me that I frankly can't listen to because they're recorded and mixed so poorly. And really, think about it: Bands aren't making money NOW playng live, or far less than they did 25 years ago. What are you seeing now that is evidence that that trend will reverse itself and people will suddenly start shelling out money for local music? Or is it just wishful thinking? ( I know I wish it would happen!)

You may be right. Seriously.

 

All I know is that pandora's box has been opened and all we can really do is watch and "se what happens". That said, recorded music has really run it's course anyway. Some good news is that as technology continues to improve, home recording quality will too, especially with AI helping with the process. I know that I was able to make better recordings on my Pentium II with Sonar version 1 and a Radio Shack mic than a lot of recordings made by "PRO" studios jus a few decades ago.

[RobRoy]

You mean the same 'supercomputers' that can supposedly find fake social security numbers of illegal aliens in 12 hours but can't process a passport for 4 months? Sorry, I don't buy it. Besides, all a copyright registration does is record a work that is already legally copyrightyed once put into tangible form. It doesn't prevent copyright infringement, nor is that it's intent. That's what courts are for. George Harrison found this out when he recorded "My Sweet Lord" and was sued for ripping off (however unintentionally) another copyrighted piece of music, "He's So Fine". With the copyright office getting literally thousands of submissions every day, I wouldn't look for that kind of efficiency from the same people who brought you the IRS.

You're thinking "inside" the box.

[RobRoy]

 

So you're saying that in the future musicians will earn no money on recorded music but will earn money on live performance. I can follow your argumentation, but there's only one problem: Your predictions don't seem to fit reality. All over the western world the trend is that live music is decreasing in value and has done so for quite some time. My impression is that it is harder for a musician to get a paid gig now than it has ever been, and that paying gigs pay a lot less than what they used to. If you count in inflation the figures become even more depressing. And I don't see any change in that trend in the immediate future. There are some other factors that play in to the equation: - There is an endless supply of kids who want to be rock stars. A lot of them suck but there's also a lot of good ones. Remember that the generation got electric guitars from their parents and were encouraged to play rock n' roll. In other words there are more musicians today than ever before. In other words more competent musicians and a hell of a lot more incompetent musicians who still want to play gigs. - You don't even have to be a musician to hold a concert these days. Last weekend a went to see an original act. The warm up act was a kid who played Ambient music. This means that he was strumming some strings on a guitar using a metal bar and sent the signal through a few effect boxes. He produced random noise for about half an hour and then got an applause from an audience that clearly seemed to be falling asleep but chose to be polite. Then the brat went of stage with a smug smile on his face, obviously convinced that he was on his way to becoming the next underground cult hero. It's sad, but it takes so little these days to get on a stage and have a musical 'act' that you have an army of posers ready to compete for the live music slots. Many times the club thinks that the posers are more entertaining for the audience than good musicians. - Live bands have more competitors when competing over peoples nights out than ever before. You have DJs, karaoke, stand-up comedy, speed dating, pub-quizes, sports pubs and what not. Alright, this is getting a bit lengthy now. Let me finish with the MAIN POINT: The supply of live music acts is increasing explosively and the demand for live music seems to be going down _regardless_ of the price/state of recorded music.

 

 

How much did professional musicians make in the 19th century, compared to other occupations? I think we are returning to that paradigm, with some twists, of course.

[ZigZagWanderer]

 

How much did professional musicians make in the 19th century, compared to other occupations? I think we are returning to that paradigm, with some twists, of course.

 

 

I think this could be it, too.

 

The current music industry is more or less based on the Beatles and EMI/Capitol in the '60s. Every band and record label is trying to recapture that magic (and money and influence), but of course it can't happen again. The planets won't line up that way in any of our lifetimes. Back then, you had a huge cohort of young people with plenty of time and money on their hands, the technological ability to reach a mass audience, and not a whole lot of content. Enter a group of extraordinarily talented songwriters and performers, and the rock star is born.

 

Our expectations are unrealistic. I think the '60s-'90s will be remembered as the exception rather than the rule, at least as far as music goes.

 

As for the live music question, I read an article in the Economist a week or two ago that basically made this same point--i.e. live music was the future. The example they mentioned was the current Police tour...you can buy the whole Police catalog for less than $100, but primo seats for this tour cost $900 a pop. While this may be true for large, established acts, I still don't think it applies to lower tier bands.

 

I still think that high gas and energy prices will spell disaster for touring bands and live music in general. And I think recorded music will continue to be devalued from digital copying. Sounds like a no-win situation.

[RobRoy]

 

As for the live music question, I read an article in the Economist a week or two ago that basically made this same point--i.e. live music was the future. The example they mentioned was the current Police tour...you can buy the whole Police catalog for less than $100, but primo seats for this tour cost $900 a pop. While this may be true for large, established acts, I still don't think it applies to lower tier bands.

 

 

Of couse, the elephant in the room is, under this new paradigm, how does a band become "upper tier"? I haven't got the answer to that one but I think that the answer to that question may be the key- if their is one.

[Synonym Music]

 

-1

 

MIDI-based studio recordings can be completely real time.

[BlueStrat]

 

That said, recorded music has really run it's course anyway. Some good news is that as technology continues to improve, home recording quality will too, especially with AI helping with the process. I know that I was able to make better recordings on my Pentium II with Sonar version 1 and a Radio Shack mic than a lot of recordings made by "PRO" studios jus a few decades ago.

 

 

Point taken.

 

I'll let you know; I just got my new Fostex 16 track diy recording board w/ cd burner and I want to do an acoustic CD.

 

We'll see.

[emdub123]

Of couse, the elephant in the room is, under this new paradigm, how does a band become "upper tier"? I haven't got the answer to that one but I think that the answer to that question may be the key- if their is one.

 

 

I totally agree.

 

If we exclude the teen-pop and Top-40 country (where things seem to be largely the way they've always been) and look at "rock" acts, this becomes an extremely interesting question. The only "rock" acts in the upper tier seem to be nostalgia acts -ones that got their start in the 60s-90s- from what I can tell. It's hard to imagine any non-nostalgia act playing stadiums that isn't on a package tour...

[GlennGalen]

 

-1 MIDI-based studio recordings can be completely real time.

 

 

 

Sure, but that wasn't my point in the context.

 

I was talking about being able to play the song excellently "in one take", on stage for a live audience.

[GlennGalen]

 

MAIN POINT: The supply of live music acts is increasing explosively and the demand for live music seems to be going down _regardless_ of the price/state of recorded music.

 

 

Baldrick,

 

I see your points. I'm not sure about the real numbers as far as live music worldwide.

 

I do know this: Humans in all history and in all cultures enjoy music. It seems to part of our physiology and wiring.

 

So I believe demand for music will continue longterm.

 

Maybe we are seeing a current low of live music attendance due to competition for people's free time, particularly young, single people who go out a lot.

 

Another thing: the live act must be quite entertaining and fresh, and a bit different every time you see it.

 

Just reproducing a recording live won't have the same draw.

[RobRoy]

 

Baldrick, I see your points. I'm not sure about the real numbers as far as live music worldwide. I do know this: Humans in all history and in all cultures enjoy music. It seems to part of our physiology and wiring. So I believe demand will continue longterm. Maybe we are seeing a current low of live music attendance due to competition for people's free time, particularly young, single people who go out a lot.

 

 

I would add just one thing. WE not only enjoy music, we also enjoy creating it. Which is why I think it is odd that people get paid so much to do it.

 

It is also why I think playing in a band is the equivalent today of being in a bowling league was in the early 60's, or being on a softball team the last couple of decades. And even song writing and creation is something people enjoy doing, even for free - like writing Linux code.

[emdub123]

 

Some good news is that as technology continues to improve, home recording quality will too, especially with AI helping with the process. I know that I was able to make better recordings on my Pentium II with Sonar version 1 and a Radio Shack mic than a lot of recordings made by "PRO" studios jus a few decades ago.

 

 

I hear what you're saying and I know this is the current "conventional wisdom" and, for a while I believed it myself, but I've changed my mind. Go to Soundclick and listen to the top-10 in any particular genre, then turn on your local clear channel good-times-great-oldies station and listen to 10 songs. No comparison, the oldies kill the DIY tunes every time.

 

No amount of technology is going to change the basic fact that it's all about the song and the mojo. A great song is a great song, you know it when you hear it, regardless of mics/pres/daws, etc. Mojo comes from the enthusiastic performance of the song and the luck and skill to capture it, not the technology.

 

Sure, my recordings might have better audio fidelity than what Sam Phillips produced at Sun Studios in 1954-1956, but they sure don't have the mojo. In 2007 it takes a lot more than a simple I-IV-V7 to get the mojo workin'. The ante has been upped considerably and the technology can't get you there.

 

I think a lot of us have been side-tracked into focusing too much effort on our gear and not enough effort on the craft and that's why soundclick, garageband and the others sound the way they do. I'm not pointing fingers, I don't have any hit songs either. Just my .02...

[GlennGalen]

 

It is also why I think playing in a band is the equivalent today of being in a bowling league was in the early 60's, or being on a softball team the last couple of decades.

 

 

Great analogy to get your point across! An amateur, fun group activity. I see what you are getting at quite clearly.

 

Not sure I completely agree. But I like the way you get the point across there.

[GlennGalen]

 

WE not only enjoy music, we also enjoy creating it. Which is why I think it is odd that people get paid so much to do it.

 

 

 

Rob,

 

I think the answer is, supply and demand (as always).

 

There is music that is crappy (lots), and there is music that is fascinating and great (rare).

 

If you can create fascinating music on a constant basis, you'll get paid more.

[RobRoy]

 

I hear what you're saying and I know this is the current "conventional wisdom" and, for a while I believed it myself, but I've changed my mind. Go to Soundclick and listen to the top-10 in any particular genre, then turn on your local clear channel good-times-great-oldies station and listen to 10 songs. No comparison, the oldies kill the DIY tunes every time. No amount of technology is going to change the basic fact that it's all about the song and the mojo. A great song is a great song, you know it when you hear it, regardless of mics/pres/daws, etc. Mojo comes from the enthusiastic performance of the song and the luck and skill to capture it, not the technology. Sure, my recordings might have better audio fidelity than what Sam Phillips produced at Sun Studios in 1954-1956, but they sure don't have the mojo. In 2007 it takes a lot more than a simple I-IV-V7 to get the mojo workin'. The ante has been upped considerably and the technology can't get you there. I think a lot of us have been side-tracked into focusing too much effort on our gear and not enough effort on the craft and that's why soundclick, garageband and the others sound the way they do. I'm not pointing fingers, I don't have any hit songs either. Just my .02...

 

 

Actually, I agree with you. I was merely trying to make the case that recording quality really is no longer a limiting factor to get good sound quality. As you pointed out, the lack of "mojo" is the limiting factor now!