Freaking depressing article

[wagdog]

 

Stop making music? That could be a viable solution. If we stop making it, we won't have to worry about who's gonna play it, who's gonna buy it, who's gonna market and distribute it, who will attend shows. We can all just go on living our lives, and it'll be a huge weight off everyone's shoulders.

 

 

Nobody is going to stop making music, we know that. Yes, I recognize sarcasm.

 

I'm curious though how people are going to make money off recorded music, it just doesn't seem to be a long term viable option.

 

And I'm also curious how bands are going to "make it" - whatever that means now. Because I think the days of selling a bazillion copies of a CD to "make it" are either over or close to over.

 

Just curious, that's all.

[MartinC]

I scanned the article, and .............so what? It's never been easy. That these guys seemingly play shows for a lot of people but make no money tells me they are doing something wrong. Maybe instead of worrying about how many myspace friends they have, they should concentrate on writing, recording, and getting airplay. Maybe instead of running all over hell and back to say they "are touring" while they play for four people, they should develop a show that will inspire people to PAY them. Maybe write better, sing better, play better, dance better, look better, until the people in your hometown will want to come out when you do a gig. Maybe wait until you are better/different/unique enough to stand out among the crowd. Maybe vocal and guitar lessons might be better uses of their time than web time. Maybe charge people money for your product instead of thinking that if you give it away long enough, people will decide to one day pay for it. Back to the bears game-at least they are what we thought they were!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I wonder what led zep or jimi would have sounded like if they spent all that time on merch or myspace that they spent in the studio?

[DevilRaysFan]

I'm curious though how people are going to make money off recorded music, it just doesn't seem to be a long term viable option. And I'm also curious how bands are going to "make it" - whatever that means now. Because I think the days of selling a bazillion copies of a CD to "make it" are either over or close to over.

 

Thats what Ive been on a SoapBox on this entire thread. When I was growing up, I had four channels on TV and the only music I heard was on the radio where Kasey Kasim informed me about what was hot and what wasn't...If I wanted that music, I went to a store and bought the record and that was the only way to obtain it (bar yard sales, taping-recording the radio, and such)...

 

...Nowadays, someone doesn't have to be limited to just radio to hear music - theres TV, the internet, sattelite, etc...and if you are a fan of a certain style of music, all one has to do is get on the internet and search...You'll pull up a million sites covering a zillion bands ( half of which are on MySpace ) and a good bulk of them are 'giving away' their music free, and not all of it is gonna' suck........ Free has now become the lowest common denominator in this equation, and free has also become the biggest factor in the-now-rampant world of music piracy...thats what you are up against.....If you have a loyal following, don't expect their loyalty to transgress free downloading, weather you are giving it away or that they are stealing it, there will always be people who want everything by spending as little as possible, even if that means doing something illegal ......especially a fan who wants your music, because this person will try to rationalize every reason they can think of why its OK for him/her to illegally get your music............

 

...acts selling CDs will have to take advantage of the heat-of-the-moment at their live shows to sell CDs...Otherwise, theyre gonna have to count on making their money by other means such as merchandise ( because at that point, the CD is merchandise)...

Young acts are gonna have a hard time becuase a lot of their venues dont pay...Blues and jazz acts have it easier because a lot of those venues do pay plus an enterprising act can sell merch on top of that

 

I think 'making it' is over, but I think somebody with smarts, a good following, and good music will at least be able to carve a little niche for themselves and make a modest living doing what they do.....

 

 

Thats how I see it. There is no way major, minor, and indi labels are gonna be able to control what has happened to the industry after the introduction of the MP3 and like formats now that they - and all the good and bad that goes with them - have been set in motion...

 

Its kinda' like trying to 'Win The War On Drugs' ..................

 

ROCK IS DEAD!!! ( Long live Paper and Scissors)

[Poker99]

Nice post, I agree 100%.

 

I said it in the most simple way possible in the past : ITS OVER.

 

The industry was already {censored}ed up, now its disappearing. Music is now free and available to anyone. People won't pay for something they can get for free.

 

Making a lot of money with music is now almost impossible, except for some major "acts of the moment" that will make a crapload of money during their 3 years carreer.

 

Making a living is still possible, but most of the money will be made live by good bands who last long enough to build a fanbase.

[rhat]

I still think a great band can make it. However, i do think a weak band can get into the orginal music scene and pretend they have a shot at making it. Face it ,, if you are playing 45 min slots for free, you are not even close to makeing it. It doesnt matter if you have a CD out or not. Anyone can have a CD no matter how bad the band really is. The market will create new rockstars. But the band has to be worthy and talented enough to make it.

 

It todays market ,, its real easy to pretend you have a shot, and there is always someone there willing to make money off your delusions. rat

[Badside]

FWIW: it doesn't matter whether MP3s sound like ass or not (actually, that's a blanket statement, yes 128KBits MP3 aren't exactly hi-fi, but high quality VBR can be impressive) is not the point: it's all about ease of use.

 

You can:

A- Ride your car to the music store during opening hours, search for CD, pay, carry it home, open it, listen to it at home, then bring it with you in your car and everywhere you need it. It's big and bulky for holding just 10-15 songs, and you end up only liking 2 of those.

B- Hit the internet, download (legally or else) song, keep a copy on your hard drive and put on your MP3 player which you can bring everywhere with you, including the car, and it holds thousands of songs, with enough quality that it doesn't really matter (you're listening through earbuds or in the car anyway) and you don't have to waste money on the boring songs use to "fill up" the album.

 

That is my constation! Not saying it is how "I" feel.

I actually quite enjoy buying an album, opening it, listening from start to finish while looking at the booklet.

 

But "albums" haven't been made for decades (except some exceptions, like the latest Green Day), now they're just collections of songs: 2-3 good, the rest is "filling".

 

The industry has been putting too much focus on the singles, that most albums are now just 10-15 shots at writing a hit.

 

So... pay 15$ for 2 songs off a CD which you need to carry everywhere (or import into iTunes or eothers), or pay 0.99$ per song which your MP3 will happily hold?

 

I hate the state of the industry. Yes, people don't want to pay for music anymores, so better put on a great show so you can at least sell tickets!

And do allow your fan to download your songs legally, better get a buck out of a song, that nothing at all!

Once it's in their playlist, they'll catch interested in what else you have to offer, and may come to your show!

 

Actually, although I never give away CDs, I do, once in a while, unlock the "download" option of a song on our Myspace and send a bulletin to every friends telling about the "limited time offer".

Worst thing that could happen: nothing

Best thing that does happen: if they like the song, they'll be interested in the others, and in the "high quality" version of it, they'll order a CD!

[Poker99]

 

I still think a great band can make it. However, i do think a weak band can get into the orginal music scene and pretend they have a shot at making it. Face it ,, if you are playing 45 min slots for free, you are not even close to makeing it. It doesnt matter if you have a CD out or not. Anyone can have a CD no matter how bad the band really is. The market will create new rockstars. But the band has to be worthy and talented enough to make it. It todays market ,, its real easy to pretend you have a shot, and there is always someone there willing to make money off your delusions. rat

 

 

I would believe what you say is true, if it was not for the fact that there are so many crappy bands that actually get all the attention in the medias and are rock stars right now.

 

Worthy and talented? blah. Some of the most popular bands are really {censored}ty.

[Li10]

really {censored}ty indeed.

[marcher5877]

Did anyone else notice that this article didnt really mention their ability as muscians?

 

 

If you make a house of quality in the woods, the world will beat a path to your door.

 

-Willie Nelson

[rsadasiv]

I don't know these guys personally, but I have been to one of their gigs and was one of their 50,000 MySpace Friends (the amount of time that they spend messaging their Internet fan base is no exaggeration - I either had to get a MySpace spam filter or drop them as a friend, guess what happened?). I don't love their music (kind of a low-bombast version of The Killers) but it is decent enough, certainly better than most bands in the DC Metro area. They do play locally quite frequently and have a pretty decent following (the description of them playing in front of four people at DC-9 is an anomaly, most of their headline gigs they bring ~100 people). They work hard, show up on time, act pleasant - what's not to like?

[ZigZagWanderer]

 

Did anyone else notice that this article didnt really mention their ability as muscians?

 

 

I mentioned this article to someone I know, and it turns out that he saw this band once, at some sort of 'Battle of the Bands' event. His comments:

 

(1) they look and act like they come from money...young guys with great gear. His guess is that their parents ran out and bought them a bunch of high end stuff when they got interested in music in school (kind of like the Donnas, I suppose).

(2) everybody in the band was acting like they were the frontman. He specifically mentioned the 'over the top' keyboardist...irritating, basically. He mentioned that the singer was the most reserved of the bunch.

(3) he said they had a few good songs. They didn't win the competition, although that doesn't mean much.

 

 

If you make a house of quality in the woods, the world will beat a path to your door.

 

 

 

Maybe instead of worrying about how many myspace friends they have, they should concentrate on writing, recording, and getting airplay. Maybe instead of running all over hell and back to say they "are touring" while they play for four people, they should develop a show that will inspire people to PAY them. Maybe write better, sing better, play better, dance better, look better, until the people in your hometown will want to come out when you do a gig. Maybe wait until you are better/different/unique enough to stand out among the crowd. Maybe vocal and guitar lessons might be better uses of their time than web time.

 

 

I think this is the moral of the story. Sure, I think a band has to do some minimum level of promotion, but I don't think that any band can (1) work a day job, (2) write, perfect and rehearse great material and (3) do non-stop promotion. Maybe 2 out of 3 if they are really dedicated, but not all 3.

 

I also read an article about a country singer/songwriter who recorded an album for something like $5k. She was in her late 20s and a mom raising three kids...in Boston, I think. I'll see if I can find a link or some more specifics, but basically her CD release show sold out with no promotion on her part--she told the sound guy that she wasn't expecting anybody but her friends and family. In the years since, her songs have been covered by Faith Hill and other heavyweights. What was she doing that this band wasn't?

[DevilRaysFan]

 

Did anyone else notice that this article didnt really mention their ability as muscians? If you make a house of quality in the woods, the world will beat a path to your door. -Willie Nelson

 

 

Irrelevent (Unfortunately) - A crappy/'talentless' band that draws a ton of people is worth more to a label, clubowner, venue, etc than a great band that only draws 10 people......happens all the time

[ZigZagWanderer]

 

A crappy/'talentless' band that draws a ton of people is worth more to a label, clubowner, venue, etc than a great band that only draws 10 people......happens all the time

 

 

 

Worthy and talented? blah. Some of the most popular bands are really {censored}ty.

 

 

I think the record industry defines musical talent as "the ability to capture and hold the attention of a mass audience." By definition, a band that draws a ton of people is talented. It may not be strictly musical talent, but it is talent nonetheless. Very few musicians can do that. No amount of marketing and promotion can make an audience like an act. Extraordinary good luck can get a band or a singer/songwriter exposed to a mass audience, but it can't make the audience like the music. Even with massive radio promotion, expensive videos, primo tour slots, etc., the vast majority of major label bands don't catch on with the public.

[ihateyouguys]

 

Did anyone else notice that this article didnt really mention their ability as muscians? If you make a house of quality in the woods, the world will beat a path to your door. -Willie Nelson

 

 

Quote not valid if there are 100 companies building "good enough" houses with a giant advertising budget.

[Poker99]

 

I think the record industry defines musical talent as "the ability to capture and hold the attention of a mass audience." By definition, a band that draws a ton of people is talented. It may not be strictly musical talent, but it is talent nonetheless. Very few musicians can do that. No amount of marketing and promotion can make an audience like an act. Extraordinary good luck can get a band or a singer/songwriter exposed to a mass audience, but it can't make the audience like the music. Even with massive radio promotion, expensive videos, primo tour slots, etc., the vast majority of major label bands don't catch on with the public.

 

 

If you market {censored} enough, {censored} will sell.

 

A lot of great bands never make it because they never get the exposure and access to the media.

[wagdog]

 

If you market {censored} enough, {censored} will sell. A lot of great bands never make it because they never get the exposure and access to the media.

 

 

That holds true for pretty much anything, not just bands.

 

I'm just thinking lately what does "make it" mean for a band nowadays and how does a band do that. I'm not overly concerned for my own well being because my goal is to play with my band in bars on the weekends and I'm doing just that and having a great time doing it.

 

I'm just sort of wondering where the whole mess is going to end up though because it's been interesting to live through this paradigm shift - it happened pretty darn fast. I remember when digital tapes were going to be the problem, then suddenly they weren't.

[gtrbass]

The paradigm shift of 'artist level accessibility' to record and release music on CD and MP3, put up a website and book your own tours hasn't produced the freedom from the shackles of the evil record man. You know why? Because the whole game looks more lucrative from the outside than it actually is or ever was...

 

In the years I worked in the music business in LA, I've heard at least two dozen of the best records no one has ever heard of. I even played on or engineered some of them. These were records that had financial backers, and often label deals. They all failed for one reason or another. Usually it was someone's goofy perception of the market viability of the act. The music was spot on... on the record and live too.

 

We used to naively think that if it was 'great' and you put it in front of the public, it would outsell the sh*t. Think again. The level playing field has demonstrated that it takes a whole lot more than just access to break an act.

 

Engaging in serious commerce takes serious dollars. One million myspace friends equals a less than a .01% return. If all it took was four guys, a laptop and a broadband connection, everyone would be rich.

 

94% of all titles released in a given year sell less than 5,000 units each. I'm talking about real label releases, not Bobby's bedroom label with a CD Baby account. Most of those CD's don't even register on the radar. It has been that way all along.

 

In the early '90's, there were about 18,000 'commercial qualified' recording titles released per year. Today, it is nearing 70,000! It's supply and demand. The suppy is astronomical, and the demand (for purchased product) is lower.

[Chicken Monkey]

 

I'm thinking that music for 99% of folks will become an expensive hobby.

 

 

It sounds like a lot of people here EXPECT to be able to make a living making music. It's fantastic if you can, but seriously--people are willing to do it for free. Nobody's willing to do data entry for free, or screw the heads onto plungers, or dig ditches.

 

If you want to make money doing what you do for fun, it's YOUR problem if you can't make it work.

[BlueStrat]

 

That holds true for pretty much anything, not just bands.

 

 

Not really. Most products have to pass inspections, quality control, and most importantly, the expectations of the customer. Either a car is reliable or it's crap. Either the superglue you bought holds stufff together or it doesn't. Either the clothes you buy fit well and are well made or they don't and aren't. The point is, a {censored}ty product on the market is far less subjective than something like music, and will succeed or fail based on it's performance. In addition, it has to compete with other products that do what they say they will. A {censored}ty product may sell initially, but it won't sustain a market presence if it doesn't deliver.

 

Music, on the other hand, is subject to trends and whims, and even {censored}ty music can not only sell, but become hip and trendy, because the end result of it, i.e., what it's created to do, is far less quantifiable than a tangible product.

 

Who knows why someone like Lindey Buckingham, a sloppy player and weak singer, makes it as a solo artist and other people who are far more talented both vocally and musically don't? It's almost all entirely subjective. You just have to hope you are liked by someone who has some pull and some dough.

[Poker99]

 

Because the whole game looks more lucrative from the outside than it actually is or ever was...

 

 

The stupid majority of the population is sure that having a radio hit makes millions appear in your bank account. A lot of them won't feel any guilt in pirating because they are sure artists that have mp3 on the web are already rich enough.

 

And the media, Hollywood movies, and other form of entertainment keep the old cliché of the rich rock star alive.

[Poker99]

 

Not really. Most products have to pass inspections, quality control, and most importantly, the expectations of the customer. Either a car is reliable or it's crap. Either the superglue you bought holds stufff together or it doesn't. Either the clothes you buy fit well and are well made or they don't and aren't. The point is, a {censored}ty product on the market is far less subjective than something like music, and will succeed or fail based on it's performance. In addition, it has to compete with other products that do what they say they will. A {censored}ty product may sell initially, but it won't sustain a market presence if it doesn't deliver. Music, on the other hand, is subject to trends and whims, and even {censored}ty music can not only sell, but become hip and trendy, because the end result of it, i.e., what it's created to do, is far less quantifiable than a tangible product. Who knows why someone like Lindey Buckingham, a sloppy player and weak singer, makes it as a solo artist and other people who are far more talented both vocally and musically don't? It's almost all entirely subjective. You just have to hope you are liked by someone who has some pull and some dough.

 

 

in the end, I think making millions with music was anormal and the business model, a manipulating game. The current situation is more realistic, in some ways.

[rhat]

 

I'd say for 99.99% of musicians it already is an expensive hobby.

 

 

 

 

Na music is in reality a pretty cheap hobby ....its only expensive to the poeple who really havent tied into some classic wallet drainer hobbies. Go fly planes, race cars, or have horses. Music is still a e very affordable hobby if you use a little common sense. rat

[marcher5877]

 

A crappy/'talentless' band that draws a ton of people is worth more to a label...

 

 

 

But its not worth more to me, and I am the only audience that I care about.

[ZigZagWanderer]

 

Na music is in reality a pretty cheap hobby

 

 

It's also cheap when compared to other show biz ventures. Try making a movie...even an artsy short. $100k minimum.

 

 

The current situation is more realistic, in some ways.

 

 

I've always thought this, too, although I'm not sure you mean the same thing that I'm thinking. There was no such thing as a rock star before the '60s. There were plenty of successful musicians before rock and roll, but nothing compared to the cultural and generational importance of a band like the Beatles. That generation of musicians happened to get extraordinarily lucky, and I doubt the planets will line up that way again in our lifetimes. The boomer rock bands are STILL insanely lucky--didn't someone post earlier about how many times he had bought The Wall? How many other classic rock records have been sold 3, 4 or more times to the same person? And $500 tickets to the reunion tour?

 

 

 

If you market {censored} enough, {censored} will sell. A lot of great bands never make it because they never get the exposure and access to the media.

 

 

I don't know, man. There's a lot of stuff that gets massive promotion and still doesn't hit. Most stuff, in fact. In contrast, bands like Arcade Fire, Clap Your Hands and even the White Stripes all got to the top without a major label buzz machine behind them. Personally, I really like the WS, can't stand Clap and think Arcade is boring. But they're playing stuff that people want to hear, for whatever reason.

 

 

Who knows why someone like Lindey Buckingham, a sloppy player and weak singer, makes it as a solo artist and other people who are far more talented both vocally and musically don't? It's almost all entirely subjective.

 

 

Yeah. I've never heard this guy, so I can't say anything about him/her. But...he must be doing something right, something that stronger players and singers aren't doing.

 

Musical talent is not the same thing as being able to produce a record and/or put on a live show that appeals to a mass audience.

[HeartfeltDawn]

 

Music, on the other hand, is subject to trends and whims, and even {censored}ty music can not only sell, but become hip and trendy, because the end result of it, i.e., what it's created to do, is far less quantifiable than a tangible product. Who knows why someone like Lindey Buckingham, a sloppy player and weak singer, makes it as a solo artist and other people who are far more talented both vocally and musically don't? It's almost all entirely subjective. You just have to hope you are liked by someone who has some pull and some dough.

 

 

 

All art is subjective. It becomes popular based on societal whims, cultural shifts, media promotion and sometimes plain stupidity. Artistic performance is subjective. You say Mr Buckingham is a sloppy player and that makes me imagine you're the type of guitarist who might love someone like Derek Trucks. I'm different, I can admire someone with technical profiency but many technically proficient players are so outstandingly dull and boring that the point of their music is lost and it becomes less an artistic expression and more a case of demonstrative technical ability.

 

Music has opened out. More bands fight for the same space. Musical instrument prices have dropped and the quality in the lower price brackets has gone right up. I'm not old at 29 but comparing the cost and quality of the Strat I bought when I was 16 (might have been Korean or Mexican) and the {censored}ty amp I bought to the quality now.. there's no comparison. The rise of technology has helped more people make music. It's another debate whether making it easier for people to make music has led to more innovative music being performed. My feeling is that it hasn't, that most of the musical advances like hip-hop and electro came when people were pushing the equipment to its limits. Computers now aren't being pushed to their limits and we haven't touched the limits. On one hand this makes the music now a little bit dull. On the other, if we touch the limits in the next five years, we oculd be listening to some outstanding music.

 

Sport and music are different beats. In sport, the best athletes win in their chosen sport. It isn't that way in music and that's the way it's always been. The best musicians don't always make it to the top and quite often when they do, they'll find that they're playing alongside some pretty awful people. Someone made a comment abotu music becoming an expensive hobby for 99% of the musicians out there. Totally, just like sport. Perhaps in the past it's been too easy to make it in terms of being an average band and eek out a comfortable existence.

 

The biggest thing to me of the whole Internet boom has been the selling of {censored}ty quality music in the form of MP3s. I hate MP3s. Listening to classical music as an MP3 file is vile. We're deluged right now by digital television, cable high-definition, plasma screens, all these new options for watching pictures yet the sound boom hasn't been Surround Sound, it's been {censored}ty quality MP3s. Nobody in their right mind would buy a product that squashed 100 DVD films onto a small hard drive that you could carry in your pocket on the proviso that those films would be shown in a reduced quality that flung out certain colours or brightness levels. Yet the repackaging of a new format that is worse than the format that preceeded it... that's genius. It's evil genius but it's still genius. Maybe one day people will start to turn against it but I doubt it.