The middle class musician

[sabriel9v]

So...while super drunk last night, my friends and I compared political structures to the music industry. In our drunken states we stumbled upon this very odd theory or notion. During the 70's, the music industry was very polarized. There were superstar groups and on the other end of the spectrum you had your broke and barely surviving punk bands and music oddities. Because of technology, we're at a point now where people can experience a relatively great amount of success without a label. Understanding how everything was so polarized in the 70's, do you think the industry is trying to cope with the emergence of a "music middle class"? In other words, people who aren't huge superstars...but not completely broke and they are leaders in their niche market. How does this new class of musicians affect the industry? Discuss

[BlueStrat]

You seem to be overlooking something: punk bands were broke and starving by choice. They liked being the anti-success bands. If you were making money, eating regularly and not sleeping on a floor with 10 other people, you weren't really punk.

[sabriel9v]

You seem to be overlooking something: punk bands were broke and starving by choice. They liked being the anti-success bands. If you were making money, eating regularly and not sleeping on a floor with 10 other people, you weren't really punk.

 

This is true. However, punk was a baby genre that was forced to create new outlets of distribution and find new avenues because they weren't accepted in the mainstream. But I want to hear more input...we were super drunk when we came up with these ideas anyway

[slight-return]

During the 70's, the music industry was very polarized. There were superstar groups and on the other end of the spectrum you had your broke and barely surviving punk bands and music oddities.

 

I think the analysis may be colored somewhat by your own aspirations

 

The above, for instance, doesn't include the "jobbing musician" with, often, a melange of activities...weddings and "events" (corporate parties, etc), teaching, maybe some pit work for stuff like the ice capades back in the day.

Hell, nordstrom just canned their piano players

[BlueStrat]

Also, in the 70s, there was a thriving pro music business that didn't involve stardom or making records, i.e. the 6 night a week working musician, and there were hundreds of thousands of them. Just my agency alone, out of a small market like Spokane, WA. had 15-20 bands on the road full time at any given moment through the mid 70s-mid 80s. That was the musical 'middle class' of the day-guys making a fair to decent living playing music without fame and fortune.

 

To answer your question, sabe, I'd say that number one, the musical middle class has disappeared, and number two, it's re-emerging ain a different form, though I'd not yet call it a middle class, since it hasn't found a way to make any money yet.

 

Maybe the 'working poor'?

[sabriel9v]

 

Also, in the 70s, there was a thriving pro music business that didn't involve stardom or making records, i.e. the 6 night a week working musician, and there were hundreds of thousands of them. Just my agency alone, out of a small market like Spokane, WA. had 15-20 bands on the road full time at any given moment through the mid 70s-mid 80s. That was the musical 'middle class' of the day-guys making a fair to decent living playing music without fame and fortune. To answer your question, sabe, I'd say that number one, the musical middle class has disappeared, and number two, it's re-emerging ain a different form, though I'd not yet call it a middle class, since it hasn't found a way to make any money yet. Maybe the 'working poor'?

 

 

So you think it's the opposite? The music industry has become more polarized?

[BlueStrat]

 

So you think it's the opposite? The music industry has become more polarized?

 

 

Absolutely it has.

 

Until the early to mid 90s, I never, ever had many of the discussions we have here. There wasn't an original vs cover mentality. There wasn't anyone talking about the virtues of playing for cheap or free. There wasn't huge divides between so many genres. Sure, there was country, rock, soul and jazz, but the rock guys generally were able to play a lot of different kinds of rock. I saw locally guys going between hard rock and lounge bands all the time, to put food on the table. And they associated freely with the jazz and soul guys, checking out each others shows all the time. There was more of a sense of community among working musicians.

 

Almost everyone played covers, because it was the only way to get club work as you worked your way up to a record deal doing your own stuff. Maybe you moved to a big city and got into the scene, but even then, lots of guys were involved in multple projects in order to make a living. For example, Garth Brooks was (and is) a huge country star, but few people know that back in the 80s-early 90s, he played 6 nights a week playing in a country band, a cover rock band, did a solo doing folk, classic rock and country, and basically whatever it took to get work. There were a lot of guys like that.

 

These days, from where I sit, I see the divisions between music factions as never having been sharper or deeper than they are now.

[sabriel9v]

Absolutely it has. Until the early to mid 90s, I never, ever had many of the discussions we have here. There wasn't an original vs cover mentality. There wasn't anyone talking about the virtues of playing for cheap or free. There wasn't huge divides between so many genres. Sure, there was country, rock, soul and jazz, but the rock guys generally were able to play a lot of different kinds of rock. I saw locally guys going between hard rock and lounge bands all the time, to put food on the table. And they associated freely with the jazz and soul guys, checking out each others shows all the time. There was more of a sense of community among working musicians. Almost everyone played covers, because it was the only way to get club work as you worked your way up to a record deal doing your own stuff. Maybe you moved to a big city and got into the scene, but even then, lots of guys were involved in multple projects in order to make a living. For example, Garth Brooks was (and is) a huge country star, but few people know that back in the 80s-early 90s, he played 6 nights a week playing in a country band, a cover rock band, did a solo doing folk, classic rock and country, and basically whatever it took to get work. There were a lot of guys like that. These days, from where I sit, I see the divisions between music factions as never having been sharper or deeper than they are now.

 

...and I guess this evidence shoots my theory to {censored}. Back to the lab

[BlueStrat]

...and I guess this evidence shoots my theory to {censored}. Back to the lab

 

well, not entirely. There is a new middle class emerging. In our system there always will be. It just hasn't found its legs yet.

 

IMO, of course...

[Dave Martin]

 

well, not entirely. There is a new middle class emerging. In our system there always will be. It just hasn't found its legs yet. IMO, of course...

 

Where is the new musical middle class? There was certainly one prior to about 1990 - working bands corporate gigs, artist's sidement, the recording musicians who weren't working on albums but were able to make house and car payments playing on demos and custom records, pit musicians, free-lance players. the market for all od those has partly or entirely dried up since then. What are the new 'middle class' doing?

[BonzoMcbrain]

Bluestrat, it's interesting that you speak of more of a musical community between working bands. There's not too much of a community over here, except for the small touring "alliances" within genres.

 

I'd say it's pretty cutthroat, actually. No way in hell do I want to be on the same team as most of these groups! I don't feel they're that good, and I just don't see what's the point in them playing. They're not skilled, and they don't have anything new to say. Every cover group I've seen has gloriously failed.

 

I'd rather just play a role in knocking some of these groups out of business you know? There's just too many of them, and they suck. There is a small minority of groups that do add something to the punch bowl, and I'd rather they get more attention and time than these second rate borefests get.

[cephus]

 

Until the early to mid 90s...

 

 

It occurred to me while watching VH1 classic the other day that there seems to be a huge cultural shift that happened about that time with regard to music. I always hated the alternative scene and grunge because I thought it was a slap in the face to players who actually played their instruments and worked hard to perfect their craft. Like music changed from merit based success to a monetary system. There has always been commercial crap music, but it seems up till about the mid 90s, the system still could support both. Now it's all 100% commercial crap and MTV and VH1 don't even show videos. It's like the art left and all music industry decisions were made by how efficiently lucrative they'd be. Biggest return on the smallest investment in time and money.

 

Maybe my interpretation is wrong, but doesn't it seem like the music died in the mid 90s and not when Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valenz and the Big Bopper died?

[Dean Roddey]

This assumes that grunge bands had no actual musical skills, which isn't true at all. It was a back to basics movement of course, but that's a good thing. It has to happen periodically to get rock back to where it's supposed to be, then it builds back up again.

 

The 'merit' in making music is in how much you move your audience, not how technically good you are. I'm all for technically good music, and have always loved Yes, King Crimson, Rush, etc... But I also loved the grunge era stuff, the best of which was incredibly powerful stuff.

 

There will always be a place in music for hormonally engorged young people doing primal scream therapy on stage. And grunge was an anti-commercial thing, which developed for a considerable period of time before anyone really noticed it. It's not their fault that their music was very widely accepted and therefore created a very lucrative commercial market for it.

[sabriel9v]

 

Bluestrat, it's interesting that you speak of more of a musical community between working bands. There's not too much of a community over here, except for the small touring "alliances" within genres. I'd say it's pretty cutthroat, actually. No way in hell do I want to be on the same team as most of these groups! I don't feel they're that good, and I just don't see what's the point in them playing. They're not skilled, and they don't have anything new to say. Every cover group I've seen has gloriously failed. I'd rather just play a role in knocking some of these groups out of business you know? There's just too many of them, and they suck. There is a small minority of groups that do add something to the punch bowl, and I'd rather they get more attention and time than these second rate borefests get.

 

 

This is a very realist perspective on the music scene. Cover bands aside, you could say the same thing about original music bands. However, my theory was solely based upon certain original bands being capable of maintaining a steady and adequate income, but not being superstars. However, there are still session men and other musicians of the like. Who do you think is playing on these pop stars' albums? Maybe they're a part of the new middle class.

[soundwave106]

Where is the new musical middle class? There was certainly one prior to about 1990 - working bands corporate gigs, artist's sidement, the recording musicians who weren't working on albums but were able to make house and car payments playing on demos and custom records, pit musicians, free-lance players. the market for all od those has partly or entirely dried up since then. What are the new 'middle class' doing?

 

Having fun with their hobby. Basically, the cost of entry to being a musician has come way down, so the market -- especially the original music market -- is now flooded. It's a good time to be a hobbyist, frankly. Musical equipment prices have either roughly stayed the same (for stuff like guitars) or have even come down quite a bit (recording gear, synthesizers) since the early 1980s. The pay is roughly the same, or downward, as the early 1980s too.

 

If you are willing to tour 24/7 and are a "niche leader" type of band, I gather that the pay is still okay for original bands even in these times. Long road to that point, though. Also, as far as I can tell, the corporate and cover band music middle class does still exist. People still hire music for events. This hasn't quite disappeared yet, and can make fairly okay money for what it's worth.

[BonzoMcbrain]

Sabriel, yeah, I was talking about cover bands and original groups. I was just saying that aside from all those things, I've found cover bands just suck for the most part. Hearing those songs get butchered the way they do absolutely disgusts me.

 

As for the session guys... don't get me started. You know,I tried to do that a few years ago and it just didn't work. Well, I was more of a "hired gun" type. I clashed with the producer over the drum tracks and he wasn't too fond with me opening my mouth. Still, I felt his ideas regarding the drumming sucked. It's a long, long story I don't want to get into, but because I challenged his opinions, I was deemed egotistical and arrogant.

 

Years later and that band is just about dead. Not even gigging at the moment.

 

I just don't have that much respect for any of the session workers that play on these pop records. They're just feeding the monster. I respect the session workers that perform on orchestral pieces and all, but this pop stuff is rubbish. There's a special place in hell reserved for the people that play on that stuff.

 

I don't know about anybody else, but, much like many football players, I don't go out there and work hard all season with hopes of not even making the play offs. You go out there with the intention of winning the Super Bowl, man!

 

I've never been interested in being a middle class musician in that sense. Who wants to settle playing weddings and all that?

 

However, with all the technology now available, there's been all sorts of stuff predicted. Some people think music will move more in the direction of the writing industry- more bands, less superstars.

 

I think that's entirely possible considering the times. So, the definiton of middle class would have to be changed. I've always thought that the best musicians - the visionary types - will only stay in the industry as long as the money is there. More than enough to just pay the bills. I'm talking about money to live good. Live comfortably.

 

We have to define exactly how much money that would be, and exactly how many bands would be needed on that level to legitimize it, but I believe that the chances of us reaching that stage are extremely good.

 

I'd also like to respond to the grunge talk. You know, grunge does get a fair share of hate from certain groups, but it is a legitimate movement. The music was new and exciting, and some of the players could play quite well. Nothing like Van Halen, but not awful. Not one of my favorite styles, but I'll give it that.

 

Music "moving" people sounds more like a cultural and personal thing to me. To me, the reason why I create music is to make music that I feel is good, and to make money. I make it for myself, not others, with the hopes of being able to make a living off of it one day.

 

I find Rush far more moving than any grunge band. That's not to say I don't dig any grunge bands though. I just connect to Rush a lot more. I reckon others feel the complete opposite. That's perfectly fine, but if we were ever to measure that to say who's better than who, it would be a highly flawed system. "Moving" is opinion.

[Dean Roddey]

 

Music "moving" people sounds more like a cultural and personal thing to me. To me, the reason why I create music is to make music that I feel is good, and to make money. I make it for myself, not others, with the hopes of being able to make a living off of it one day.

 

 

It is a personal thing and I agree you can only make music that you like and hope people like it also, but you aren't going to make much of a living if your music doesn't move people. That's why people like a particular kind of music, because it moves them in some way. If the kind of music you think is good only appeals to a tiny number of people, your choices are basically live without a living, or go do something else.

 

I like Rush and Peal Jam equally well, just for different reasons. But I'm a musical ho and I like all kinds of stuff.

 

 

I've always thought that the best musicians - the visionary types - will only stay in the industry as long as the money is there. More than enough to just pay the bills. I'm talking about money to live good. Live comfortably.

 

 

I think that's kind of true, but maybe for different reasons than what people think. I.e. not because they are greedy, but as you grow as a musician, I think that many great artists want to do more adventerous stuff, spend more time in the studio and less on the road, etc... But I'm not sure that's an option anymore. If everyone steals the content, and you can only make money touring, many people who might have made great music will just burn out, and there's no fallback like with the Beatles to just retire to the studio and make incredible stuff and not tour. I think that this will be a huge loss to music lovers, because so many artists won't be able to achieve a level of income that will allow them to back off from the immediate requirement to be as popular as possible in order to keep their career viable.

[vintageshred71]

I've found cover bands just suck for the most part. Hearing those songs get butchered the way they do absolutely disgusts me.

 

I just don't have that much respect for any of the session workers that play on these pop records. They're just feeding the monster. I respect the session workers that perform on orchestral pieces and all, but this pop stuff is rubbish. There's a special place in hell reserved for the people that play on that stuff.

 

I've never been interested in being a middle class musician in that sense. Who wants to settle playing weddings and all that?

 

I was deemed egotistical and arrogant.QUOTE]

 

Speaking as someone who plays in cover bands and does sessions, I can't imagine why anyone would have that opinion of you

 

Thing is, when you get to your mid thirties, and have a mortgage to pay and three kids to bring up, you do whatever you can to bring money to the table BonzoMcbrain. My days of chasing a record contract are over, but I still feel lucky to be able to support myself within the music industry.

 

Principles are like cocktail sticks, if you try to eat them, they stick in your throat.

[sabriel9v]

"We have to define exactly how much money that would be, and exactly how many bands would be needed on that level to legitimize it, but I believe that the chances of us reaching that stage are extremely good."

 

In terms of defining the middle class with rigid financial terms, I don't know if that's necessary. The term is already very fluid and flexible considering how many millions of Americans identify themselves as middle class. The wealth disparities within the middle class alone are huge. However, I do think it's possible to estimate what percentage of artists falls into the "musician's middle class" category.

[BlueStrat]

 

In terms of defining the middle class with rigid financial terms, I don't know if that's necessary.

 

Perhaps, and I think I get what you're getting at, but the terms lower, middle and upper class have always beeen defined economically. It certinly isn't some caste system like India's, in that lots of people move in and out of the various 'classes' quite reguarly.

 

I'd say that rather than a middle class, is more of a musical Proletariat. Once profit is removed or reduced from something, it becomes harder to maintain as a viable profession. Is the music business being put back in the hands of the Proletariat the cause of the loss of profit, or the result of it? I don't know. Maybe both. Maybe neither. Yes, no, maybe.

 

We're all blind, being led by the blind. It's a strange time to be in the music business.

[sabriel9v]

"I'd say that rather than a middle class, is more of a musical Proletariat. Once profit is removed or reduced from something, it becomes harder to maintain as a viable profession. Is the music business being put back in the hands of the Proletariat the cause of the loss of profit, or the result of it? I don't know. Maybe both. Maybe neither. Yes, no, maybe. "

 

Wow...great question. I suppose in this scenario we would have to define the proletariat and how it became involved in the industry in the first place. Are shifts moving towards the proletariat because the class evolved as a result of the loss of profit...or is it the opposite?

[Dave Martin]

Having fun with their hobby.

That's not a 'musical middle class'; those are amateurs (in the true, not the denigrating sense). My question was simpler - were are the people who can make a middle class living as musicians? THAT's what we've mostly lost in the last 15 years. Sadly, it seems that they aren't missed.

[mickeydean]

 

That's not a 'musical middle class'; those are amateurs (in the true, not the denigrating sense). My question was simpler - were are the people who can make a middle class living as musicians? THAT's what we've mostly lost in the last 15 years. Sadly, it seems that they aren't missed.

 

 

i live in lancaster pa. hardly the center of the music universe and yet 15 years ago i could work 6 nites a week, for months at a time, and never leave town.

 

now, even though i am willing to travel long distances and i am lucky to be better connected than most, it is not possible to make a middle class living just playing guitar.

[schmatass]

It occurred to me while watching VH1 classic the other day that there seems to be a huge cultural shift that happened about that time with regard to music. I always hated the alternative scene and grunge because I thought it was a slap in the face to players who actually played their instruments and worked hard to perfect their craft. Like music changed from merit based success to a monetary system. There has always been commercial crap music, but it seems up till about the mid 90s, the system still could support both. Now it's all 100% commercial crap and MTV and VH1 don't even show videos. It's like the art left and all music industry decisions were made by how efficiently lucrative they'd be. Biggest return on the smallest investment in time and money.

 

Aside from you musical preference, I agree with your post.

 

Small Investment/No Artist Development=Big Return. And this is what happens when music companies merge with large conglomerate corporations - who by the way, no nothing about making music. Add to that, a business who has absolutely refused to accept the new pervading technology that has now become the status quo. That, in essence, equals the current landscape we see to today.

[rhat]

My old drummer is a HS band director ,,, we talked about it ,,,,I figure she is a good person to listen to. She works in the schools... and is in the music depts.

 

She said that it wasnt long after she started teaching that the live teen band providing music for dances stopped. Back when we were in school ,, we played live music for school systems. it was all choir guys and band kids and some rockers. The kids in those bands had focus ,, they had training ,,, and they had gigs. You can see the slow deteriation of live music as the garage band generation matured, No new kids got fed into the pipe. The quality of young bands when to hell. Now you got those old geezers providing much of the live paying music scene ,,, most of them are either in wedding bands or re starts doing classic rock in bars for not enough money. If you wanna know why the music scene for younger guys sucks ,,, thats because the lead singer didnt have 4 years of training in the school choir. My thory is ,, if you dont have good vocals ,, you have {censored}ty bands. You have some amazing guitar players today ,, but if you team them with cookie monster vocals ,, which in my opinion is just a weak excuse for not knowing how to sing with lipstick on it by calling it a genre. With no training ground ,, you cant expect much in the way of good bands..... today its the blind leading the blind. Some kid plugs into a half stack ,, screws on the dirt and starts chuggin and his friend starts screaming or growling and they think they are gonna be rock stars..... its a joke. Its embarassing .. but most of them dont know enough to even know they should be embarassed.