my so called music career, i need to hear from you

[richardmac]

I'm envisioning a dog chasing his tail.

 

The music business is undergoing an extremely radical and painful transition. The old system is dying. We'd all agree. The new system is about "power to the people." Anyone can pick up an instrument, toss a band together, record a CD, get on myspace.

 

If you want to make a living in the new music business, you're not going to do it using the old methods. It won't work. OK, before someone points out an example, let me rephrase that, laddy... it won't work for 99.99999% of you.

 

We're not alone. Look at newspapers. They're getting slaughtered by online competition. Professional reporters are now competing with bloggers. And they've got the same comments we've got. "Any moron with a computer can compete with them now." Yup.

 

We can sit around and pine for the good old days or argue ethics, or we can adapt. That's business.

 

The problem is not "how do you make money." The problem is "how can you NOT be obscure?" It's not just a question of giving CD's away at shows or not giving them away. It's how do you get to the point where 500 people will show up to see you play? Or how do you get to the point where 10,000 people will download your new song?

 

For years, live gigs were the only way to gain exposure. It's still being touted as the model - "succeed locally first." But the problem is that the local market for live music is drying up and blowing away.

 

I see what I'd consider to be fairly well known bands playing medium sized clubs. I see big name bands selling "best of" CD's at WalMart for $5.

 

The newspaper isn't what it once was, and neither is the music business. We're trying to sell a product that can be duplicated and redistributed for FREE. And that has millions of choices. If I had all the answers, as I've stated before, I wouldn't be posting here - I'd write a damn book.

 

One last thought. In this day and age, I don't see anyone putting together a band, making a CD, and making a living. I just don't. Your odds are lottery odds and they're getting worse every year. That doesn't mean that you can't write music, make CD's, and play shows.

 

The kids growing up today are all about read/write. They'll all about collaboration, remixing, self-publishing. They're not going to want to sit passively and be entertained like we were in the 70's. Today's teen is blogging, manipulating media, and yes, in some cases, picking up a guitar and learning two chords and slapping up a myspace page. This is our audience or, for some of us, this will be our audience when they get older. Understand them and you'll understand where things are headed.

[Sleeping_One]

That was spot on Richard.

[BlueStrat]

That was spot on Richard.

 

He's pretty smart, ain't he?

[masterbuilt]

One way to stand up for musicians and songwriters... get all of your friends to do the same... don't play for free. If the clubs can't get people willing to pay for free, they just might have to cave and pay the bands and performers.

[Scafeets]

Great analogy between music and journalism. I'm guessing (well,maybe hoping) that the market will eventually gravitate toward standards that will reward excellence in both. There will always be a market for the lowest-common-denominator type of stuff in both industries. This explains why both the Post and the Times have survived and prospered in NYC. And why the National Enquirer will never go away. Still; the success of highly commercial, albeit lowbrow, journalism has the same traits as highly successful mainstream music -- It may be crap, but it's well-crafted PROFESSIONAL crap.

Bloggers and amateur journalists have lowered the standards and expectations of a generation of people who - according to a lot of research -- stopped reading newspapers and news magazines.

In a similar way, music is not as central to the lifestyle of 18-34 year olds as it was in the 60s and 70s. That means fewer visits to music clubs, fewer sales of recordings and lower ratings for music radio.

While demand is way down (for both music and journalism) colleges are producing thousands of newly-minted J-school grads, music majors, "music industry" and "music technology" grads -- glutting a diminishing market that will get more music and journalism whether or not it wants it or needs it.

So, technology reduces the cost of entry, lowers the standards of excellence and increases the noise ratio. The influx of poorly crafted crap (as opposed to the aforementioned professional crap) means that we now have three basic flavors of music and journalism: Good stuff (an ever-smaller proportion), bad stuff (growing by the day) and junk food (the same fairly high ratio of commercial stuff that always existed.)

[sabriel9v]

Picture this scenario: "Hey, that's pretty good. What group is that?" "Some new guy named "sabriel9v", why?" "I like it, where can I buy it?" "Man, you don't have to buy it, just go to one of his gigs, he gives his sh*t away, man."

 

 

Your scenario is somewhat flawed. 1) The first person who generated word of mouth about my "product" probably would have heard about it because I was giving away free music samplers. In turn, they created a positive buzz and spread the good word to their friends' about my music. 2) I never declared that selling music at one's show was a bad strategy. Hence, the individuals in your scenario would not only have created a positive buzz about my product, but also have the capacity to purchase it within a music venue or local retail store.

[sabriel9v]

Heres an idea, make a sampler/freebie/1$ demo available at shows which has 3-4 cuts on it, make it a multi-format Cdr that you can also put in your computer that has your bands web page info/link and band bio. At the same time, sell your full CD for whatever. Do both.

+100 Once again, the person who presents their statement in a solution based fashion is overlooked...but not by me

[richardmac]

So, technology reduces the cost of entry, lowers the standards of excellence and increases the noise ratio. The influx of poorly crafted crap (as opposed to the aforementioned professional crap) means that we now have three basic flavors of music and journalism: Good stuff (an ever-smaller proportion), bad stuff (growing by the day) and junk food (the same fairly high ratio of commercial stuff that always existed.)

 

 

I agree and I don't agree. Technology has not lowered the standards of excellence - it has lowered the average quality of what we see and read. The best information out there is not coming from the newspapers and magazines, necessarily - you're going to learn more about how the new music business works by reading Andrew Drubber's blog than by reading about it in WIRED magazine, for example. But the average blogger does not know their material the same way an average journalist does. BUT the outstanding bloggers know their material far far better than the average journalist does.

 

I also do not believe that there's an ever-smaller proportion of good stuff, at least not in journalism. When I was 21, the only two sources for music recording information were MIX magazine and Home and Studio Recording (or whatever the heck it was called.) That was IT. Now there are thousands of related web sites. So numbers-wise, there are many more places to go to get good information. The problem is that you need the skill to tell the BS from the real deal. This is where it's important to educate our students about this. But that's another topic.

 

However, music-wise, you're probably correct. As music gets relegated to hobby status for more and more people, and as more and more hobbyists enter the market, it's going to get harder and harder to find really, really good music. It will be out there, but finding it will be extremely difficult.

[eca]

Charging money for your art gets people to appreciate it. Think about it- when you pay for something, anything, it decreases the chances of you getting rid of it. that said, today you can listen (not purchase, listen) to anything you want through the net. So I really don't think there's anything wrong with giving for free CD's with one or two tracks tops. You can think about it as a teaser. And if we're into some more scenarios , think about this one: you're giving your audience something that will remain in their possession, that can remind them of you a long time after your performance, over and over again.

[richardmac]

One thing about CD pricing. Go to WalMart (hold your nose as you walk in) and check out what they're doing with CD's. They've now got a huge section of CD's you'd know for $5 to $9. And a smaller section of the brand new overpriced crap the industry is pushing today. You can see where this trend is headed.

 

Your music is competing with Aerosmith's Greatest Hits for $5. Or Van Halen I, for $5. That's where we are at right now. If you're charging $15 at gigs for your CD's and no one is buying, well...

 

But in reality, something is worth what the market is willing to pay. If you sell CD's for $10 and you are selling tons of them, it wouldn't make sense to mark them down to $5. It depends on your crowd. I know a lot of singer/songwriter musicians who do small to medium sized gigs, and here's what I see - in that market, in my location, the people who charge $5 for CD's sell them and the people who insist on charging $10 don't. $5 at a coffee shop is an impulse item buy. $10 is not.

 

But if you're a solo singer/songwriter such as Jonatha Brooke or Adrianne, the people who come to see you are already your fans and they're going to be more willing to shell out more money.

 

Why bring this up? Because the idea was suggested that one might sell a $1 demo CD with band contact info and other trivia on it. It's not a bad idea, but I wonder if you're charging $5 for CD instead of $10 how that might affect things.

[richardmac]

you're giving your audience something that will remain in their possession, that can remind them of you a long time after your performance, over and over again.

 

 

I think you're right. If I went to a show and took home a free demo CD, and I really liked it, I'd consider buying the artist's music. But they'd better have put their web site url on the CD. And if I just sorta like the music, I'm not going to buy it, because there's so much available, and... and like most folks, with so huge a market, I feel like I can be picky about what music I buy.

[soundwave106]

So, you're a musician, but you have to give it away, but that's okay, because it's really a means to sell schwag?

 

Call it the KISS model. *shrug* They probably made more money from merchandising, too.

 

One thing, BlueStrat, you are in a slightly different situation than younger crowd oriented, pop musicians are. Contemporary blues is largely listened to by an older crowd, and this crowd tends to not be quite the perpetually broke fans you get in other genres. I've *rarely* seen as many giveaways in other, more older-crowd / higher-income type genres (eg adult contemporary, jazz of all types, etc.) Musicianship is more of a focus than brand and image there; as a result, I do think that a higher degree of professionalism and chops are required for these genres; and you can actually make decent gig money in these genres, still, although I imagine it's down from the 1980s.

[Scafeets]

 

.... and this crowd tends to not be quite the perpetually broke fans you get in other genres.

 

 

Perpetually broke because, unlike their predecessors, they're spending their disposable income on $3,000 "gamer" PCs, adding $5,000 worth of tuner stuff to a $10,000 Honda, buying $100 sneakers, etc.....

 

Let's face it: The 18-34 crowd chooses to spend their money elsewhere because they no longer put a high value on either the performance or the recordings of the average rock band. It could be a dilution of the talent, it might be a cultural thing...whatever: The reality is that we, as musicians, are caught in a classic supply and demand scenario.

 

There are twenty bands for every gig. The talent pool is so shallow that most club goers don't want to take a chance on some unheard-of band because the chances are -- they suck. The club owners hire bands based on price or draw - NOT talent. So, if Crappy Band #24 brings in 100 Jager-Drinkers, they get booked for a return. If Really Good Band kills and only 50 people hear it, they MAY tell enough people to create a buzz, but they won't be back to the same club because of the lousy draw.

 

I'm not buying the "younger crowds are broke" theory. They just have different priorities.

[Poker99]

I'm envisioning a dog chasing his tail. The music business is undergoing an extremely radical and painful transition. The old system is dying. We'd all agree. The new system is about "power to the people." Anyone can pick up an instrument, toss a band together, record a CD, get on myspace. If you want to make a living in the new music business, you're not going to do it using the old methods. It won't work. OK, before someone points out an example, let me rephrase that, laddy... it won't work for 99.99999% of you. We're not alone. Look at newspapers. They're getting slaughtered by online competition. Professional reporters are now competing with bloggers. And they've got the same comments we've got. "Any moron with a computer can compete with them now." Yup. We can sit around and pine for the good old days or argue ethics, or we can adapt. That's business. The problem is not "how do you make money." The problem is "how can you NOT be obscure?" It's not just a question of giving CD's away at shows or not giving them away. It's how do you get to the point where 500 people will show up to see you play? Or how do you get to the point where 10,000 people will download your new song? For years, live gigs were the only way to gain exposure. It's still being touted as the model - "succeed locally first." But the problem is that the local market for live music is drying up and blowing away. I see what I'd consider to be fairly well known bands playing medium sized clubs. I see big name bands selling "best of" CD's at WalMart for $5. The newspaper isn't what it once was, and neither is the music business. We're trying to sell a product that can be duplicated and redistributed for FREE. And that has millions of choices. If I had all the answers, as I've stated before, I wouldn't be posting here - I'd write a damn book. One last thought. In this day and age, I don't see anyone putting together a band, making a CD, and making a living. I just don't. Your odds are lottery odds and they're getting worse every year. That doesn't mean that you can't write music, make CD's, and play shows. The kids growing up today are all about read/write. They'll all about collaboration, remixing, self-publishing. They're not going to want to sit passively and be entertained like we were in the 70's. Today's teen is blogging, manipulating media, and yes, in some cases, picking up a guitar and learning two chords and slapping up a myspace page. This is our audience or, for some of us, this will be our audience when they get older. Understand them and you'll understand where things are headed.

**BANG !!!**

[Guvnor]

Dont you think its valuable to turn someone on to your music, even if it means you take a small hit in the shortterm (the cost of a disc)? If that person ends up coming to ONE more of your shows because of it, its payed off in spades, not to mention the word of mouth they can contribute by turning others on.

 

 

If this is really how it worked, there'd be a million Myspace superstars... Just because somebody downloads a song doesn't mean they are going to go to a show or buy a t-shirt... unless you can get subliminal messages onto the tracks...

[soundwave106]

Perpetually broke because, unlike their predecessors, they're spending their disposable income on $3,000 "gamer" PCs, adding $5,000 worth of tuner stuff to a $10,000 Honda, buying $100 sneakers, etc.....

Some of that is true, but you're pretending people *never* blew their meager income on, say, hot-rodding cars back then.

I'm not buying the "younger crowds are broke" theory. They just have different priorities.

And I'm not buying that there was no such thing as a suck-ass band in the 1960s, either. It's like pretending garage bands never existed.

The true part of your statement is that kids today have different priorities -- there flat out is more entertainment choice these days, as well as a wider variety of ways to blow out your income. Back in the 1970s, you didn't have video game consoles, the Internet, hundreds of TV channels, etc. Add to that the fact that it's easier to create your own art than ever.

[Poker99]

If this is really how it worked, there'd be a million Myspace superstars... Just because somebody downloads a song doesn't mean they are going to go to a show or buy a t-shirt... unless you can get subliminal messages onto the tracks...

[Scafeets]

The true part of your statement is that kids today have different priorities -- there flat out is more entertainment choice these days, as well as a wider variety of ways to blow out your income. Back in the 1970s, you didn't have video game consoles, the Internet, hundreds of TV channels, etc. Add to that the fact that it's easier to create your own art than ever.

Agreed...

[sabriel9v]

 

Perpetually broke because, unlike their predecessors, they're spending their disposable income on $3,000 "gamer" PCs, adding $5,000 worth of tuner stuff to a $10,000 Honda, buying $100 sneakers, etc..... Let's face it: The 18-34 crowd chooses to spend their money elsewhere because they no longer put a high value on either the performance or the recordings of the average rock band.

 

 

This statement may be partially true, but what are we supposed to do about it? How am I supposed to directly change the listener's purchasing and consumption habits? You really don't. You just alter your business strategy so that it works within the current music biz atmosphere. If that means giving away a few free music samplers to create a buzz about your product, I see nothing wrong with it.

[Poker99]

This statement may be partially true, but what are we supposed to do about it? How am I supposed to directly change the listener's purchasing and consumption habits? You really don't. You just alter your business strategy so that it works within the current music biz atmosphere. If that means giving away a few free music samplers to create a buzz about your product, I see nothing wrong with it.

... or maybe realize that the music business is dying and find a day job.

[Scafeets]

 

This statement may be partially true, but what are we supposed to do about it? How am I supposed to directly change the listener's purchasing and consumption habits? You really don't. You just alter your business strategy so that it works within the current music biz atmosphere. If that means giving away a few free music samplers to create a buzz about your product, I see nothing wrong with it.

 

 

Sure...there's nothing new about that. I have free samplers that Warner Records put out in 1969, 1970 -- they were LPs with a cut from ten different new artists. As a label guy, I used to give radio stations boxes of LPs to give away on the air-- it was a very effective method.

 

Likewise, I used to organize "dollar concerts" at local clubs. If a station was 94.9 FM, it would be 95 cents admission to the show -- done as a promotion.

 

The quid pro quo here was that the bands received a tangible promotional benefit from giving away their performances and recordings.

 

I'd like to see more of that now.

[mmmiddle]

long story short....

 

 

I don't know. Here's something I've learned from my own experiences, your mileage may vary. If it isn't fun, don't play music.

 

I say that because I was in a band for awhile that had as its main goal getting big enough to make a living from the band alone. After awhile, the tension and pressure of such a goal is just too much. Everyone in the band snapped at one point or another and playing music seemed pointless and no fun. I think that atmosphere contributed to the eventual breakup of the band, and probably to the band not really going very far while we were together.

 

In contrast, I started a new band whose first, #1 goal, is to have fun. Everyone in the band knows this. Whether we play small shows or big shows, put out an EP or just throw practice recordings up online, we don't care, as long as we're having fun. And actually, the result has been that we are getting more offers to play shows, are generating more excitement around our music, and are going further, all because we really care about having fun rather than "making it."

[germanicus2112]

If this is really how it worked, there'd be a million Myspace superstars... Just because somebody downloads a song doesn't mean they are going to go to a show or buy a t-shirt... unless you can get subliminal messages onto the tracks...

 

 

You cant parse the difference between someone who is already at your show, getting a demo from you, and someone sitting at a computer downloading an mp3?

[Poker99]

I don't know. Here's something I've learned from my own experiences, your mileage may vary. If it isn't fun, don't play music. I say that because I was in a band for awhile that had as its main goal getting big enough to make a living from the band alone. After awhile, the tension and pressure of such a goal is just too much. Everyone in the band snapped at one point or another and playing music seemed pointless and no fun. I think that atmosphere contributed to the eventual breakup of the band, and probably to the band not really going very far while we were together. In contrast, I started a new band whose first, #1 goal, is to have fun. Everyone in the band knows this. Whether we play small shows or big shows, put out an EP or just throw practice recordings up online, we don't care, as long as we're having fun. And actually, the result has been that we are getting more offers to play shows, are generating more excitement around our music, and are going further, all because we really care about having fun rather than "making it."

that's where I am now, but still in the same band!

[soundwave106]

Likewise, there were thousands of clubs all over the place that catered to local bands. These clubs generally had standards that kept the garage bands out. And that's the difference.

 

 

Yep. As you pointed out, garage bands back in the 1960s "gigged" for no money too. Dive bars are a bit more receptive to these bands these days, some bars wants to be CBGBs without doing the scouting work I guess.

 

It would be nice if the quality-oriented local music clubs came back, but they seemed to disappear in the 1980s and in the 1980s probably was never like what you had in the 1960s. Then again the music industry really has consolidated over the years, eliminating a lot of the structure for local and regional support even before MP3 trading took off.