Steve Miller: The Whole Music Industry Is Fuckin' Gangsters and Crooks
rollingstone.com
rollingstone.com
The Whole Industry Sucks
I had two bands that ended up on Major Labels and Toured the World. I met a kid on the street wearing one of my Bands shirts and struck up a conversation. They still love the band 10 years later.
These guys per person made at the TOP $7,000 in profit after expenses were paid. One band did a KickStarter and pulled in $40,000. It was their biggest pay day ever. I knwo a band (Zao) who has the a Label's (Solid State) biggest selling album ever and the band never saw a dime. PS That band was drama and the drummer was the biggest jerk ever BUT they still deserved to get paid.
Nobody says this: In the 1980s, you could establish the sort of relationships to get priority at CD plants and resell back catalog that was already universally known. So the people who won did that instead of so much trying to break new acts.
The last gasp of a flood of new acts actually getting on radio was the SubPop ... thing in the 1990s. After that, nothing unless you followed R&B or "indie." That monoculture ended than. But to be fair, it only started in the first place because radio transitioned from being mainstream to being a "youth" market.
Just one point of clarification, when I wrote “the labels,” I meant the big three major labels and their subsidiaries. As both a life long musician and avid music fan, I don't count truly independent labels as part of the "industry."
Why are the Big 3 still in this chokehold position? Is the market failing, or do they actually provide valuable services that can't be obtained elsewhere?
In either case: why is that?
Many of these license fees are done in bulk. The same with countries that automatically collect a tax on USB sticks and optical media. You pay a volume license, but it never filters down to the artists because it's not collected based on which songs are actually stored or played.
This is hardly all of it. There's a huge mass of corruption under the surface. Such as them not actually forwarding over license fees for song collections, or including songs they don't actually have the rights to include.
but anyway, something like that is how they'd get paid for music they don't own.
These arrangements were worked out back when "radio" was "disrupting" the live music and recorded music industries, and people were trying to "monetize" the "eardrums"
This is one big reason why bands/singers/artists need labels. They're not able to turn the lyrics on the back of a napkin into a credible album on their own. They often don't even write the songs - the label has a stable of songwriters to do that for them. The artist is often just a pretty face autotuned in.
Even if a band can produce a CD on their own, they need promotion, manufacturing, and distribution. Who is going to get their CD in front of DJs, etc.? Who is going to set up concerts? Who is going to handle the financing? Who is going to do all the work needed to run a business?
The "just a performer" model is only true for that small percentage of singers who are just performers. That model includes some of the bigger household names. Some of them are essentially fashion models who sing and dance, not musicians. Others are singers who also produce, and have a feel for what sounds good even if they can't play all the parts. (This is harder than it sounds.)
There's literally an entire industry of independent artists who record and produce at home, do their own tour management and logistics, maybe mix in a studio for some final polish, handle distribution, and so on.
And an entire related industry of bloggers, DJs, and other online sites that review and curate the most interesting new music.
The labels keep on keeping on, but their business model is very fragile now. They wait for a producer to manufacture a band, or for a band/artist to bubble up from the indie (artist - not musical style) scene.
When they reach a critical mass they try to buy them. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't.
The bizarre thing about A&R budgets over the last few years is that they're as huge as they've ever been, but concentrated on a relatively small number of artists. Because there's a lot of money involved the labels are ridiculously risk averse. If a signing doesn't turn into a cash cow after the first album they're dropped.
This has always happened, but the cycle is so short now that only acts that have instant mass appeal or a guaranteed existing fan base are successful on labels. Everyone else is indie.
Of course. But not that many are successful at it. Even the Beatles floundered for years before success came only after signing with a label. Note that Ringo was a session musician brought in by the label. George Martin made enormous contributions to their music.
Their original drummer, Pete Best, could not keep time when recording. George Martin raised the issue that he needed to be replaced, that's when they decided to reach out to Ringo.
Ditto the Monkees. At least Cassidy could sing (and damn, he was good). The Monkees couldn't write, sing, or play without massive help.
They broke up because of a no-holds barred fight with their producer/svengali, declining sales and an awful vanity film (think Spiceworld but much worse), but their albums still sold.
That's part of why Tedesco was much less employed and Hal Blaine was working as a ... security guard(?).
Lumpy on the beginner guitar newsgroup (alt.guitar.beginner) wore out Ovations for a living at some time around then.
You're incredibly mistaken. Yes, the Backstreet Boys/One Direction were exactly what you are describing, as are any major acts. But bands outside "mainstream" music are anything but pretty faces. One can write credible music without production. See: Pixies, The Jesus Lizard, Andrew Bird, ...
Exactly my point. To become a major act (i.e. make money) artists need lots of artistic help. I know this is a brutal thing to say, but if you want to get a band out of obscurity, you're going to need help.
Even Michael Jackson had Quincy Jones help him achieve his breakout album (Off The Wall) and was smart enough to go get the artistic help he needed. And Michael Jackson was one of those incredible artists who could write, sing, dance, and arrange. And he still needed help.
If a band is not interested in making mainstream music, that's fine, but not making money comes with the territory of not appealing to the taste of lots of people.
PS Don't let my oldest daughter know this I HATE Adele Happy Music and Sad Lyrics crap!!!!
Barring circumstances of pure chance, an app needs marketing and promotion to gain any traction, and this costs money. It also usually requires deals with artists of some interest or popularity to get attention, and to ensure the service has enough content.
> Why are the Big 3 still in this chokehold position? Is the market failing, or do they actually provide valuable services that can't be obtained elsewhere?
My theory is that most people actually want to be told what to listen to and don't really care to leave a relatively small comfort zone in terms of music tastes. The current system "works" for consumers so the incentives for anyone to come around to change it are weak. Personally I don't consider this an inherently good or bad thing, just an observed state of affairs.
Disclaimer: Not an expert. Not in the music industry.
I worked at Snocap for a while. Like that Snocap wanted to enable indy artists to self publish. But, the major labels wanted to control the "distribution" of their content. "Their" content. I left.
Now, I'm thinking of getting back into it. Maybe enhance live gigs. This talk is really timely and inspiring!
He goes into depth about the market and business nature of the music industry. It's solid. Whether as an intro or review, it's a quality piece. Thanks for posting this, it's very relevant.
The only problem I see nowadays is there's virtually no vetting process. It used to be the good bands would eventually rise to the top and the shitty garage bands would be relegated to small venues. Today, there's such an over saturation of music. Artists have thousands of avenues to get their music out. As a huge music fan, how do I sort through all the noise to find a truly good band, and not some guy programming the guitars, drums tracks and bass and then does the vocals himself?
Today, I just stick with a small handful of bands that I can support and just keep an eye out for new bands. There's just way too much noise to signal ratio for me to sit and search for hours on end to find one decent band, only to find out they broke up five years ago.
Some highly regarded albums that use that exact process, all are five stars on Allmusic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_Riot_Goin%27_On
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Hate_Machine
Another that legend has it was recording the same way, albeit under different circumstances:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siamese_Dream
Another recent one that the verdict is still out on:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Scholz
Also I grew up playing with his Rockman device and it was sincerely one of the coolest guitar innovations a kid could have access to early on.
I believe the "Beat It" guitar solo was also recorded there. Because there was no legal paperwork with MJ's mgmt., that was a freebie - to the utter dismay of his label.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siamese_Dream
I read the wikipedia entry and it's quite a stretch :].
really? Are you sure? Plenty of big bands did not deserve it but were well marketed and plenty of smaller toilet stop tour bands deserved it and never made it.
The question is a good one. How does one differentiate themselves from the pack. The same goes for just about any art form today. There are so many artists and so many works, many of them good enough to tickle your fancy and yet the majority of them will only get a tiny fraction of the consideration they deserve.
I would love to publish music or books, but I know that given my dysfunctional relationship with social media, that I am just about wasting my time doing any of the above, even if I had a shred of talent.
The arts have to be their own reward. If you're making art for money, and not the love, it's probably not worth doing.
For better or worse, the marketplace is finally realizing this.
I'm saying that if money is the dominant motivating factor in producing art, expect to be disappointed. Technology has reduced many costs of artistic production and has led to an oversupply of "content." To the cold, uncaring marketplace, you're effectively being compensated by those good feelings involved in the process of imagining, producing, and sharing art.
Even so, I draw and record music for my own enjoyment, and to collaborate with friends.
But surely you could organize your own precision-strike book or album release via targeted online ads. I'd be surprised if there weren't lots of companies trying to sell this service.
That's called marketing, and it's something the major labels are exceptionally good at.
The world today is still kind to the western developer, but how do we solve this problem for developers now so that we don't have to figure it out in the future?
I find Podcasts on Music AWESOME for discovery: http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510019/all-songs-considered
Last.fm used to be a place where I could check out bands I had never heard of. It was like the website equivalent of the friend who spends all day listening to new music, and will recommend music that is eerily perfect for you.
I feel like the "similar artists" function has changed to prioritize artists that are already extremely popular, even if a much less popular artists is much more similar to the band you are currently listening to. It's plausible I know a lot more bands than I used to, and that new bands are inherently less novel to me. However, I believe this is a trend that can be followed across almost all websites.
As evidence, you only need to look at the changes Facebook made in the same time period. They study the interactions their users make as much as any company, and they've ensured that their users spend the most time on Facebook and provide them with as much data as possible. Facebook used to show every update on the new feed. Now I rarely see posts from anyone I disagree with. I used to get a lot of my information about bands from their Facebook groups. Now the only updates I get are from the major companies I've liked, because they can pay to send a message.
I totally understand why large websites are doing this. These services are most profitable as an advertising platform. In the case of Last.fm, the people listening to John Doe and the Backup Band aren't going to make them money. This 'cultivation' has an extremely chilling effect on the variety and depth of news, viewpoints, etc. that allowed the internet to foster an explosion in creative expression.
The obvious approach is that you look for "people who like this, like that". This is easy to measure and understand. And when you're faced with a person who liked this, it is usually the right answer.
The problem is that you don't know WHY people who like this, like that. Often it is simply, "Heard both at an impressionable age." What you want it to be is, "On the musical criteria that I can recognize, this music is similar." But that's a complex piece of logic, and it is not clear how to do so.
Which makes the tools really good for rediscovering all of the stuff from your childhood, and really bad for discovering new music that is similar to stuff you like.
Eh? Do you mean you don't like it unless you know the band is full of good instrumentalists or that you find too much stuff that's not done well?
Fundamentally I don't disagree; it takes a lot to 'sound pro' and a lot falls short...it's been a multi-year learning process on my end and I'm still nowhere near 'pro' engineer level, though some tracks might fool ears here and there.
I'm not sure if their plan had a broader strategy, but I felt the vision was at least admirable due to its mission beyond just firm profits.
At $0.0001/stream typical, Pandora itself cannot ever add up to meaningful income for a non-hit artist. Most of the income for the non-hit artist will come from that core group of committed fans who buy everything the artist makes, contribute to kickstarters, and shows up at all the concerts.
As a discovery tool Pandora's value is debatable. My anecdotal experience is that of all the various ways that I and other artists I know have made fans, Pandora was never one. YMMV.
(Update: I just found a bit a data that states that Pandora accounts for ~10% of new music discovery which is a lot better than I would have guessed.)
Curation works better than recommenders.
To my great surprise, I continue to discover new acts, music thru the radio. Just like when I was kid.
KBCS.fm and KEXP.org have great speciality shows. They also do a good job of posting their play lists, streaming archives, linking to artists, promoting upcoming shows, etc.
I've rarely discovered new stuff from a recommender (Pandora, last.fm, whatever). Now I don't even bother.
But I do rediscover music (from my youth) via YouTube. Which is a delight.
If mining radio playlists stops working for me, I'd be willing to try something like Apple Beat's notion.
Radio is still the most important music discovery media: https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net/images/infografik/norm....
Notably, that chart puts Pandora discovery at a meaningful 10%.
Aside: I very much want to use scrobble (or equiv) to consolidate all my faves. It's on my ever growing to do list.
This sounds like a version of Russell and Norvig's Mengitis question. The probability you have a stiff neck if you have meningitis is 70%. But what is the probability that you have meningitis if you have a stiff neck? Keep in mind that Meningitis is 1/50,000 cases but stiff necks are 1/100 cases. Answer: 0.14%, quite small.
Similarly, the probability that you are on Pandora if you are discovered is 1/10. But what is the probability that you are discovered if you're on Pandora? Likely very, very, very small.
I'm not sure that's what the analysis is saying. I think the analysis is saying, "among discoverers, when discovery occurred, the discoverer was using [CHANNEL] with X% probability".
To me this says more about the weakness of the alternatives than about the strength of Pandora. At least it's possible to hear new music on Pandora. It's sad what a lowest common denominator echo chamber terrestrial radio has become.
Consider this typical everyday sort of press release we see in the industry all the time these days: http://www.musicrow.com/2014/03/clear-channel-bbr-music-grou...
Payola: Payola, in the music industry, is the illegal practice of payment or other inducement by record companies for the broadcast of recordings on commercial radio in which the song is presented as being part of the normal day's broadcast. Under U.S. law, 47 U.S.C. § 317, a radio station can play a specific song in exchange for money, but this must be disclosed on the air as being sponsored airtime, and that play of the song should not be counted as a "regular airplay".
Revenue sharing agreements? SMH.
Imagine you're an independent artist. That's the hurdle you have to be able to cross in order to get access to discovery platforms. This includes access to choice Spotify or YouTube playlists, satellite and Internet radio, and other conventional discovery mechanisms.
Bingo. It's not so much that "the music goes over their head", it's that the musicians are entertaining themselves.
Audience feels surplus.
Months passed, and then I got a form letter saying the album was rejected. No explanation, no details on if the other songs were listened to, etc. I've never been sure whether to conclude if my songwriting just sucks more than I thought it did. Anyway, I haven't really had any ideas of where to submit the album since then, other than just giving up and putting it on Spotify.
This all started with file sharing 15 years ago. Everyone thought they were helping out the independent artists, but in reality, it made it so they could no longer compete without a huge corporation backing them. File sharing has only helped big labels by increasing the barrier to entry.
I know so many independent artists that were making a decent living (not rich, but enough to support themselves instead of having to get a job) selling music online. File sharing changed all of this. The value of music (CD/MP3s) slowly approached 0 and now that we have streaming, copyright infringement still hasn't gotten any better, it's worse.
Live shows, the profit model so many people tried to use as justification for sharing, don't really pay much unless you are doing huge venues and have big label connections. A small gig might get you a couple hundred bucks in a night. With gas, time, and splitting it with everyone in the band, there isn't much to be passed around.
This also puts many of these artists in completely desperate situations, where they will sign pretty much any contract. The big labels know this and use it to their full advantage.
The big corporations with tons of cash reserves will always be able to survive the slaughtering of an industry's profits...and we still have all of the major music labels. What we don't have is many of the independent artists and labels.
Speaking about Indie Music
I'm the SMALL Record Label. The money comes in through sales of Merch, Gigs and selling CD/MP3. I think there has never been a time better for Indie Music. There are more people making a "living" in music and not being a big label band or a cover band, but they are all fighting for a very small pot.
Blame
1) Music Fans. The vast majority of people will never give Indie bands a listen and have the listening pallet of a 6 year old.
2) Indie population is high majority college age kids. I would love to see this expand. I am in my 40s and I don't know anyone my age that is into Indie Music. Heck when I was in my late 20s and early 30 I was "Old Man" to everyone.
3) Bands - Don't have enough money sense (Including myself as a studio/label owner). They have a TON of survivor instincts and the tenacity to keep going but they can't figure out how to turn things into money.
4) Streaming - People actively seeking out certain music pays the same as mindless random steams. I think if people search and specifically pick your music it should pay more.
More indie rock bands should play more covers and stop pretending like they're god's gift to songwriting. More people would go to and enjoy their shows.
The country, bluegrass, jam, americana and folk scenes have tons of fans that support a large number of pro and semi-pro pickers and singers. They play a lot of covers because people do like to hear their favorite songs played live. A lot of them get to the point where they're playing like half their own songs, but some will always play songs written by other people.
The pickers that can play lead on an instrument, sing, and write songs are called "triple threats". These guys are few and far between and end up being superstars. Jimi Hendrix, Merle Haggard, Jerry Garcia, Willie Nelson and Brad Paisley, just to name a few. They play lead instruments on other people's recordings, sing other people's songs, and write songs for other people. Notice the emphasis on "other people". That's kind of lacking in indie music, which instead has a philosophy of solipsism. It's built right in to the DIY ethic. Don't sing someone else's songs, sing your own songs. It's ultimately a losing formula.
I make more money, play to more people and have more fun playing covers to people down at corporate gigs or just down at the local bar than I ever did in whatever indie rock band I've played in throughout the years. It seemed like we were trying to reinvent music from a faded memory in every indie band I was in. Covers were uncool, and we had to define "Our sound". "Our sound" ended up being much shittier than traditional forms like country or the blues.
Oh well, indie rock will be dead in 10 years tops. I've got a lot of refugees from the indie rock scene learning to play more traditional music. Either that or they just hang up their guitars for good. The DIY ethos is just too alienated and embittered to for people who feel like making the transition to adulthood.
The crowd was biggest and most engaged for Max Savage. After hearing 10ish songs that I knew back to front, the next act of originals felt very flat, despite being the more well known artist.
It made me very keen to hear Max cover other full albums, even a festival of nothing but interesting covers. Not cheesy covers, but cross-genre tweaks, etc. I'd pay to attend that gig sooner than I would an event of purely originals that I didn't really know.
Then there are covers that reimagine the song, like "White Rabbit" by Sanctuary. Pretty awesome. And who can forget "Tamborine Man" by William Shatner (!)
I primarily am using Pandora and it really depends how much time I spend thumbing music up or down. Once I zero in a station it doesn't seem like I hear new artists or songs very often.
I'll also add that in my personal case, pandora led me to finding and buying more music. Spotify and smartphones over iPods (and buying a house) are why I don't by albums very often anymore.
a) Find some bands you like, go see them live.
b) Get talking to people at the gigs (this helps if they're smaller venues), they'll recommend all sorts.
c) See the support bands, odds on you'll like some of them, then go and see them, see the other bands they're in, it doesn't take long before this gets out of control :).
d) Make friends, go and see bands they like, it might not always be your thing, but if it's a social thing anyway, it doesn't really matter.
e) Go to festivals, listen to all the bands beforehand - i used to generated spotify playlists of glastonbury etc. Ok, listening to stuff on spotify doesn't make the artist much, but if you like them, go see them when they headline, buy merch, recommend them to friends etc.
f) I used to take photos, it's pretty much a dead industry nowadays but it puts you in touch with bands and helps get you kind of noticed which might lead to opportunites you might not get otherwise.
g) Be eclectic, you're spoilt for choice, if you're lucky enough to be in London or SE England or a decent sized city.
h) Follow bands on facebook, soundcloud... often this leads to other similar bands.
i) Personally i don't bother with large venues or bigger bands that much, i might make the odd exception, but there's serious amounts of really great music and musicians well away from the expensive/aircraft hanger venue/popular stuff and there's the bonus it might actually have some meaning because it's not trying to make money :).
Seems harsh to blame people for their personal tastes. Maybe the product is wrong or the genre limited. Surely blaming discoverability and the like is fairer? Beyond discoverability, I think repetition is very important which is where labels and links to radio/etc are useful.
This is the service I'm looking for:
A free service optimized at promoting new music, or just random radio. Medium bit rate MP3 ok if 320kbps can be sold for a low monthly fee instead. Spotify is way too expensive for this, use case.
An added value store for those rare gems I actually want to spend money on. For me, most importantly, high quality recordings in lossless CD-quality. For other it might be fan memberships to get pre releases or other bonus things.
To me the problem is he either or thing. Either I have to buy lots of insanely expensive downloads in iTunes or something, and then listen only to that. Or, I can get the opportunity to discover new things in Spotify or tidal for equally insanely expensive service fee, but have no option to keep discoveries besides keep paying said insane fee.
Bandcamp's Music Feed feature is basically the streaming radio bit you're after, and Bandcamp itself will let you purchase and download lossless copies of the music. I wish Bandcamp was even bigger than it is, because it totally deserves to be.
But I realized I left out the hardest requirement, which probably is the killer for most competition, i want to use the same service to listen to mainstream music (at least the old mainstream music I listen to)
Edit: OTOH it might be possible to get by with covers only. A search for Pink Floyd certainly didn't disappoint.
In November 2012, the Grammy-nominated hit song-writer Ellen Shipley reported that one of her most popular tracks got played 3,112,300 times on Pandora.
For this, she was paid $39.61
(Source: the somewhat depressing "The Internet is Not The Answer", by Andy Keen)
As someone who works in/with the music industry, it really pains me to see bands put out great work despite so much pain (and drama) to themselves, only to get underpaid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1bV0NBeG8E
it is worth restating that this patreon was not connected to the development of 8chan at all, but for the support of a disabled individual in need of assistance. patreon decided that this individual was worthy of complete censure from their funding platform.
in my experience, most crowdfunding/e-busking platforms engage in a degree of censorship of one form or another. if the right people don't like you, they will find any number of reasons in their vague CoC to keep you out.
While I care not for his white supremacist nonsense, no payment platform should be in the business of policing speech. They're jerks.
At first approximation, this sounds like a worse scenario for the artist.
> Why should we do that? Because it works and its a foundational element of a market economy.
Modern finance has already created a model where music artists are beholden to financiers and middlemen. How and why do you expect this to turn out differently?
http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Commercial-Culture-Tyler-Cowen/...
I expect it to turn out differently because the legal and accounting costs for future digital contracts will drop drastically.
That's how things were financed in the middle ages
In the middle ages, can you get thousand of people to essentially send you a small paycheck every month on an ongoing basis?
And what exactly is wrong with that model?
Financial assets and intellectual property are not something I can teach you in a comment box. I recommend reading these two books and then we can start the conversation back up again.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Everywh...
http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Commercial-Culture-Tyler-Cowen/...
Tyler Cowen and Hernando de Soto are two economists that are held in incredibly high regard and have done a wonderful job explaining the core concepts of both what constitutes finance and how it applies to intellectual creativity in a market economy.
Cue the knee-jerk rebuttal in 3... 2... 1...
"But the internet changed everything!"
Uh huh, ok, sure, whatever you say... yawn
First, I totally understand how it can feel to share opinions that frequently are not given the seriousness that you feel they deserve, where it seems people may dismiss what you're saying out of hand or disagree without engaging what you're saying at all. The frustration of "spitting into the wind" in this way is totally valid.
However, I would invite you to leave off ending your comments with language decrying or dismissing those who disagree with you.
As I was reading you comment, up to the end I really was thinking "I get the sense that the internet did change quite a lot, I would like to learn more about the reasons others may disagree or why others think it may not apply." But the moment I reached where you call what I was wondering about a "yawn inducing knee-jerk rebuttal" I completely moved from curious to hurt.
I may very well have questions about what you've shared (and indeed, I do!) but disgruntled dismissal of alternative viewpoints makes me feel as though asking to learn more would yield only contemptuous or belittling comments.
I suspect you'll convince many more people if you leave off the needling language.
This is the exact opposite of preaching to the choir. Most people on these forums have been leading successful lives by toeing the party line in the tech industry. You all already think you know everything worth knowing and that the Internet has made the pre-networked world completely irrelevant. It is such a strongly reinforced ideology paired with addictions to touch screen devices that control your thoughts and actions so completely you can't seem to notice how ignorant and arrogant you've all become.
I'm here to just plain tell you that you're wrong. I don't have the resources to roll back the brainwashing of 100,000 techies. I can't sit here and be your personal psychologists and hold your hands while I explain the fundamentals of intellectual property in a market economy. I'm up against 25 years of raging idiots screaming about the RIAA and the MPAA. I know this ideology well because I used to be a true believer. I figured out this was bullshit on my own, just by leading life, learning about love, and finding myself a real community, not some digital hideout for run-away teenagers like HackerNews and Reddit. Again, I used to be that, I used to be that kid sitting at home in small town American feeling really left out and finding a group of other rejects on IRC and Slashdot and the open source "community".
So you just keep on thinking that "The Internet has changed everything!" and keep on ignorantly disrupting the entire known universe with your hair-brained schemes, and I'll sit here on the sidelines and call you all a bunch of jackasses, how's that?
Also, I'm trying to get dang's attention because I really want to have a serious sit down talk with the dude in person but I've probably scared him away by cursing like a sailor and talking about hanging out with rednecks in a honky tonks bar. If I make a stink he normally shows up. So dang, buddy, let's get coffee in San Francisco sometime soon. I promise to be polite.
Everyone, go listen to some Merle Haggard and actually try and listen instead of just talk talk talk talk talking the fuck all the time on your dumb ass devices.
Stop it, now you're just whining! 'lelandbatey' is offering you excellent feedback. The number of people that voted you down (or up) is a tiny fraction of the membership.
Communication is hard, but you've got good things to say, and people that want to hear you. Probably it's true that no one here agrees with everything you believe, but they certainly don't all agree with each other either. Whether or not the person you are responding to directly understands (American?) intellectual property law, there are others that do, and other perspectives that are important. It's a more diverse community than you give it credit.
So you just keep on thinking that "The Internet has changed everything!"
No, it hasn't changed everything, but it's sure changed a lot of things, and music is one of those. While practically free and instantaneous delivery may not change drastically change the business of music, it certainly changes the process of discovery. While it's not quite as major as the first phonograph, I think it's likely to have comparable impact. For example, without the internet, I don't think I ever would have found this[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtX2HPBMcsQ. And now that I have, certainly my life will never be the same?
[1] Antti Paalanen - Meluta (We Wanna Make Some Noise)
In any case if you'd like an in depth economic analysis of how the Internet actually did change everything that might challenge your view you might appreciate The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom by Yochai Bekler.
Cue the knee-jerk rebuttal in 3... 2... 1...
"But the internet changed everything!"
Uh huh, ok, sure, whatever you say... yawn
From my perspective, there's nothing to argue with or talk about.
I don't think you even remotely understand what the term "intellectual property" means outside of some narrow and lopsided definition of the term from something you read in Wired magazine or on Slashdot.
From my perspective you're too ignorant to have this conversation and you need to go learn a few things before you should try and engage in a discussion about these concepts.
Right now it's like I'm trying to discuss differential equations with someone who hasn't even studied grade school algebra.
I've been optimistic for stuff like etsy.com and artsyo.com. I have some additional notions (use cases) that I probably won't ever have the gumption to tackle, but would love to see happen.
Now I wonder about the marketing magic required for self-promotion and "multi-channel" content. Of her peers is a genius for self-promotion, self-publishing. Another does side gigs teaching art, running events like art parties for children birthdays. And everyone's chasing commissions, of course.
Not so different from being a consultant or small biz entrepreneur , really.
--
Big fan of de Soto. Thanks for the Tyler Cowen link.
Vinyl 1x01 - Zak Yankovich "We practically break even on all the flops." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PU3DHiXZ-8
http://www.billboard.com/biz/search/charts?f[0]=tm_imprintla...
I'm also fairly sure that Underoath's Define The Great Line has since outsold any of Zao's albums (I'm guessing either Liberate or Blood and Fire were the top seller that bald_fat mentioned).
It is also interesting that that most self published artists get the semi-derogatory term of "Indie-artist", and that there may even be a public opinion which has been molded into expecting a "quality filter" through labels.
The question I always come to is how big can you get without a label? and will there ever be a day when artists have full creative control of their craft? This would mean that the artist would need to value and understand business practices, distribution methods, contracting, etc.
[edit] and the artists that do appreciate this seem to start labels (see epitaph records or Bad Boy Entertainment)
But...there are some exceptions!
There are certainly a handful of examples of responding to the last question you pose - re: being independent and achieving mainstream success. The ones that I find the most relevant are CHVRCHES (unsigned, SoundCloud got them attention, eventually had their pick of labels) and Macklemore (independent, used major label distribution services though). Also Skrillex - his label had no interest in his bleep-blonk-screech-BASS DROP tunes and he set it free online and got that avenue going - now he's got his own label and millions in the bank. There are some outlier musicians like Prince who are genuinely contentious with both industry and fan expectations.
I think more and more artists who grow up as 'one-person operations' (think Grimes) will navigate a new business platform. Labels will specialize in these artists, or management teams. Eventually though, there does exist a plateau where it seems inevitable to have to deal with a large entity such as LiveNation or Ticketmaster...neither of which are very well regarded as customer friendly in this day and age - at least not as much as direct-to-fan opportunities. The next 10 years should be interesting both in the US and globally.
Oh, and in my opinion, artists tend to start labels as a compensation mechanism to get more power for their own business enterprise, and potentially profit from the success of others signed (see: Cash Money / Young Money Records).
Financially I think artists like Skrillex (EDM producers in general) are incredibly lucky. Production costs are practically zero. You buy a DAW and some monitors and you can do everything at home on your laptop. You don't need to pay a band, all revenue is yours. And on top of that touring costs are minimal (a midi controller and a laptop) so you're extracting the maximum profit from each show. If you want a financially successful career in music this is probably the most sure route to take.
Edit: A lot of people responding are bringing up the point that production costs for most genres are now relatively low. While that's true when it comes to actually making money from the music that's much easier in electronic music for the reasons I gave above (one person, very little gear to drag around, no band to pay).
Owl City is a great example of a talented person producing their own material (then mastered) which fit the quality expectations and was, pretty much, recorded in one guy's bedroom.
Gotye's "Used to Know" was recorded all by himself in a room over a barn in New Zealand.
These are just a couple recent examples where I think the technology and dynamics of music production are really coming together (Trent Reznor is a great historical study). Personally I really enjoy playing with a talented drummer - which I will do tonight and probably broadcast on Periscope - but when I'm at home, making tunes that I'll eventually release, I can get fantastic results from Apple's GarageBand "Drummer" algorithm thingy.
The tools that exist now would've changed my world as a teenager. I think teenagers growing up now - the ones serious about making music - have more tools and opportunities than ever before. I'm a wee bit jealous, no lie.
Edit: To clarify regarding your edit, the personal production can now extend to live performance. Rappers typically just have a DJ behind them (sometimes a live band). There's a lot of wiggle-room for mid-market musicians to simply bring their box of backing tracks with them to perform live, and I think that is becoming more and more acceptable. I used to get really odd looks using a Netbook + Akai APC40 on stage, and now that's pretty tame compared to some of the other gear setups indies can employ. This way, the musician makes more money because there are fewer musicians on stage that need to be paid (my personal approach).
Sometimes I believe the guys in the 60s & 70s ironically had it easier because they just sat around, maybe smoking some dope, and played music. There wasn't a smartphone at their hip vibrating every few minutes, so they could really just pour their heart into the music and hey, Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, Beatles, Dylan, etc... you name a great, probably came out of that time period. While I like a lot of stuff today, I do question if it'll hold up to the test of time and personally feel very little of it will when compared to how much did & will continue from the 60s/70s.
Also, we should keep in mind that there was a ton of silly, throw-away, bubble-gum music during the 60s and 70s. Basically my contention is that the good stuff will, inherently, stand the test of time. Maybe because of, or in spite of, the river of crap surrounding it haha.
$78k production $1m in advertising
It sounds like any other business. It's like saying freelance web developers are incredibly lucky, because their only business expenses are a laptop and maybe some software. That's true, but it also means that high school students can do what they do for free.
And then again, EDM is cheap, but it can be extremely time consuming if you're going cheap. Good synths don't just build themselves and there's a reason people buy virtual instrument packs.
Therein lies the rub. You can't beat real circuits and valves especially when you're cranking it loud for a gig. The difference between the (admittedly pretty amazing) VST's and the real deal is the difference between sounding good and sounding great.
Touring a band is still expensive. So much so that it was the difference between going on extensive global touring as a duo or not touring at all (4 piece) for someone I know.
[1] A Kemper review from 2012 - http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/guitars/kemper-profiling-a...
>This is the context in which the Kemper truly excels and it proves possible to create amp profiles that are good enough to fool three sets of very experienced ears during our testing process. At one stage, we even find ourselves unplugging the reference amplifier just to make sure that it's definitely the Kemper that we're hearing and there isn't some elaborate hoax taking place!
Honestly I think mixing and mastering each make a much bigger difference with recorded music. In my experience the "amateur aesthetic" usually comes down to these five things:
1) Timing
2) Tuning/intonation
3) Variation or lack thereof
4) Mixing
5) Mastering
The old adage applies to music too: Beginners care about gear, professionals care about technique, masters care about sound.
Caring about sound means caring about gear. I don't know any masters (and I know a few) that don't obsess over the gear they use in order to get the perfect sound. Shit in shit out. I think this also applies beyond music: Masters optimise at every link in the value chain.
Actually you could very much can, and especially in a gig, where acoustics are not as perfect as at home with expensive hi-fi speakers.
You'd be surprised how many top artists, with huge followings, use amp simulations and plugins both on stage and on their productions.
>The difference between the (admittedly pretty amazing) VST's and the real deal is the difference between sounding good and sounding great.
No, that's talent and a good mixer, producer and masterer (neither of the three lesser acts have).
Tons of great sounding albums where recordings with VSTs. Heck, even Bob Ezrin uses the things nowadays...
That and probably to no small extent the huge influx of MDMA and MDMA-like drugs.
Practically speaking, I think it's the musicians who "ask" someone else to take care of that stuff that get screwed. This is more like the "Pop Star Contract" take-it-or-leave-it kind of approach. Sure, the label can make a person a star, but that comes with some significant catches (see: rappers angry their label won't release their new album).
The information age is numbing. There is too much of everything, so it's all debased.
The Internet also flattens everything. You get a market with no barriers anywhere. Power and prestige accrete to the winners due to network effects.
Put those two things together and you get an extreme power law market with one or maybe at most two or three winners who own each vertical. I expect Apple Music and Spotify to be the only two "record labels" on Earth here in a few years.
Only the big labels are prepared to provide this support.
[grammar edit]
Point is all of us work with dozens or hundreds of artists because outside of maybe ten mega artists you can't depend on a single "brand" to support you. Granted this applies to video more than other areas, but even agents and managers will have a few to several artists they work with.
Well, probably never. Isn't division of labor one of the main reasons for human advancement? :)
Re. losses: yes, that's how it works. You do a bunch of work up-front and if it flops, you don't make anything.
If you're interested in this question, someone to watch closely is Chance the Rapper.
He started his music career just over four years ago when he received a 10 day suspension during his senior of highschool for allegedly having marijuana on campus. During those 10 days, he recorded the entirety of his first mixtape, 10-Day, and released it to datpiff.com and had relatively large success. The album was angry at times-- mostly complaining about the suspension, but also very fun and nostalgic. It was a third of Breakfast Club, half Dazed and Confused, and a sixth Ceelo-Green Fuck You. The production was sometimes great and sometimes really lacking, but on the whole it was impressive for an 18 year old with nothing but an old Macbook and 10 days of free time.
If I recall correctly, it received something like 10k downloads before his next album, Acid Rap, and that is where he really blew up. It was choir-inspired psychedelic rap with flawless production. It had dark moments talking about Chicago violence and losing friends. It retained the CeeLo-theme of "Screw you, I can do this myself." But this is where he got millions of downloads and became a household name to a sizable portion of 14-28 y/os-- and in only just a bit more than a year since his suspension.
At this point he started getting label offers like crazy, and he didn't like it. He saw the wild success he had in all of one year and didn't want to sign a label, and to today he still hasn't. He talks a lot about making a union for up-and-coming music artists.
One song he has that talks solely about this can be found here: 'https://soundcloud.com/chancetherapper/chance-the-rapper-the...
Young black boy, how he got the labels scared?
A&R's like, "Chano, you ain't playin' fair!
You gon' set a bad example for the average bear
You a Yogi, you should idle while in child's position"
I be like, naw, these my sons, this prenatal care
I'mma show em how to make it here and make it fair
Take it there, they could kill me and I ain't gon' care
You is just an ankle weight, lighter than some angel cake
Sweeter than some maple syrup, easier than Ableton
Make a plate and make a player
Make em play it
Just don't count your sheep before they hatch
You chickens 'fore your eggs
Eat your dinner 'fore you say your prayer
[...]
Young tactician, just got my taxes finished
Beat the tortoise by a hair in an '04 Ford Taurus
On a spare with a wax finish
There's a lot of metaphors, you just lack vision
You just bad business
UH!
All your shit been lower case
Lower class, lower key
I'm the only minor minority in priority
Sippin' gin and tonic while I plot upon authority
Author of my horoscope, feeling like the oracle
Ain't no rules, nigga
IGH!
He's stated that one of his biggest idols as an aspiring Chicago rapper was Kanye West, and as someone who was watching him prior to Acid Rap, it was really fun to see that on West's most recent album he was featured in multiple songs-- still without a label. His dream was realized in a matter of a few years, and I think that clearly shows that mobility is at least possible in this day and age without a label
The question is if these platforms (soundcloud, datpiff, genius to an extent) can provide enough value to these artists that a symbiotic relationship is sustainable after they become popular. One of Chance's close friends, Vic Mensa, also came to popularity through soundcloud and datpiff, but he signed with a label soon after. Things worked out for him, too-- he has worked with West and appeared on SNL. Chance is more political and principled and is definitely an outlier-- so these platforms can't rely on artists having that mindset.
Life isn't and shouldn't be "everyone is fake except this one true artist here." They're all artists. If Miller could magically become a better musician he would have. He probably felt tremendously upstaged by Young's and Davis' talents. I'm sure hearing this broke his heart.
Miller himself got his early breaks through concerts backed by Chuck Berry in 1960's. I can't imagine him calling Chuck a low talent nobody, even though by then his music was very much out of style as blues-based and psychedelic guitar rock took over. Everyone has to ride someone else's coattails to make it in this industry. No need to be an asshole about it.
in other words, it wasnt really 'ingratitude' it was literally, i am not grateful because i dont want this.
I do see where some coercion was possible, but by 1970 Davis certainly had the political weight to turn this down if he truly didn't want to do it. The reality here is that he was past his heyday in terms of sales by then and probably wanted to revitalize his career by touring with the current popular bands. Birth of the Cool was almost 15 years old by then.
There's definitely a diva factor at play here.
"We're not about to do a free-form jazz, uh, exploration in front of a festival crowd!" - David St. Hubbins, "Spinal Tap."
His singing and playing were both spot on. His sound was terrific. I'm a guitar player myself, and the tones he got from his Les Paul and Strat were textbook examples of classic, excellent tone. The band was tight as a band can be. It was a great night of music. The guy is a first rate musician.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01WeCge6T1U
If you don't like it, we'll have to agree to disagree. :-)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser#Murder_investigati...
Miles was legendarily difficult, but at the time, he had a point. In 1970 he was asked by Clive Davis to go to the Fillmore and open for Steve Miller to support Bitches Brew, which still stands (even among all of Miles' other legendary work) as a controversial classic.
Having listened to the box set of his 1969 live shows [1] a bunch of times -- wow! What a band. It's been almost 50 years and it still sounds fresh and crazy. It is of course in a whole different musical realm than Steve Miller.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Live-Europe-1969-Bootleg-Series/dp/B00...
That's over. Through heavy promotion, there are still stars, but they have a smaller fraction of overall plays and the margins are lower.
And we haven't even had much AI-generated music yet. That has to be coming soon.
When a Vocaloid learns your job, what are you going to do?
All that you need then is a human avatar that the kids can connect to and take as their role model.
As an Olde Phart(tm), what DJs do looks very much to me like "a human avatar" and aggregator.
Already in production. See Hatsune Miku in live concerts.[1][2] Not only is the performer an avatar, the singing is synthesized by Vocaloid software, which you can buy.[3]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhYaX01NOfA [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyTmXLWCazw&nohtml5=False [3] http://www.vocaloid.com/en/
"To create a song, the user must input the melody and lyrics".
Here's a great break-down of "Shake It Off" from a songwriting perspective, which kind of reveals the simplicity is deceptive in some ways:
http://www.stereogum.com/1788251/30-essential-max-martin-son...
Also, I forgot to mention that the weird thing about music is that it follows trends just long enough to want a new one. Thus, whatever formula might win out for a period of time would likely be usurped by a variation or counter-intuitive trend. A funny thought in this line is that a hit-making, successful "Hair Metal Pop" AI would be going great until the "Grunge Rock Pop" AI started getting traction. Humans are fickle!
There will come a point when one of the easiest ways to make money for a musician - sync licensing - is overtaken by computer generated tunes.
That article goes further, that their goal is to be Instagram like, helping the unlearned make more professional sounding things.
That doesn't seem more revolutionary than the Auto-Tune.
[1] http://www.globaluniversityventuring.com/article.php/5136/ju...
AI could perhaps work soon for certain formulaic music (like say bubblegum pop) as well as some forms of synth music (I easily can see generative minimal techno for instance). I will say that people don't tend to like overly formulaic music though; they tend to like the twists, turns, and "personality" that people can bring to art. Even in pop, formulaic pieces are quickly forgotten. But it's probably possible to write an algorithm now that does this sort of stuff really well.
Beyond pop formula, I think AI advocates sometimes underestimate the difficulty. There are no real "rules" in music. The music of the world is very diverse, the "rules" even in pop / folk vary from culture to culture.
Many styles of music are way beyond AI at this point IMHO. They are either much more technically complex (Western classical) or rely on improvisational skills that I would think would be difficult to parametize (jazz, Indian classical) Heck, even with something like say blues music, which pretty much uses the same template for most songs (well, a similar rhythm and similar chord changes at least), you've still got the soloists and the singing. Vocaloid ain't got nothing on Muddy Waters or BB King etc. :)
I don't think anthropomorphising something that generates pleasant sounds is going to get you anywhere, by the time you get anywhere interesting, you've become the artist.
Here[1] is an interview with Alex Ebert where he discusses a non lyrical song teaching him about death.
Do either of you write or play any music? What supports your arguments other than a few marketing op-ed pieces put out by Google in the last couple of year?
You do realize that Google's self-driving cars and other AI research programs are mainly exercises in show business themselves, right? Well kudos to the people running public relations down in Mountain View, they've certainly convinced their target demographic that Google is the place to be for AI research!
> AlphaGo alone shows that the AI is likely to discover new styles that we failed to examine before, why can't the same happen with Art?
Because Go is a game with set of rules and clearly defined winner. Art has no rules and no winners and no losers. You can only program a computer, be it a neural network or some other machine learning algorithm, to deal with a finite set of inputs. Human oversight is still needed to set up and do the initial training of unsupervised learning algorithms and obviously needed during the entire process of supervised learning.
The number of variables that go in to a music production are pretty astonishing. I'm guessing you have pretty much no experience with writing lyrics, melodies, counter melodies, arranging a song, playing the drums, playing the bass, playing any accompaniment, singing, recording, mixing, and then mastering. There's probably around a billion subtle variables that go in to what ends up being 4 minutes of a stereo recording. I would imagine it would take hundreds of thousands of man-hours just to train the initial complex neural network that could get anything that would spit something out that remotely sounded like the Beatle's Yesterday. Perhaps it wouldn't take as much effort to reproduce some plastic pop star, but you know what? People don't really like that shit. Kids do. For like 3 weeks. Then the plastic melts.
You know what, this is basically pointless. You've made your mind up to remain ignorant about music. That's your prerogative. I'm safe in my knowledge that some genious in the Bay Area isn't going to be taking my job playing covers in a bar room any time soon. What, do you think a bunch of people sitting around in a dive bar want to watch a laptop sing them country music? But who knows, judging by how tasteless and uncultured most techies are, you guys would probably be fine with listening to the world's worst poetry, the world's worst instrumental lead, and the tackiest, lamest, emotionless expression of the inhuman condition a machine could possibly imagine.
Why do AI zealots hate humanity so much? Are you ashamed of our past? Do you treat your parents and friends and family as ultimately replaceable by a machine? Art is much closer to the home and heart than you're realizing. I mean, it's you whose gonna end up driving real love away from your own life. I'm surrounded by a bunch of lovely morons who are fine with their shameful existence and are fine from spending the rest of their years being far from perfect and living side by side with misery and sin. You'd better get acquainted with reality at some point. You're still just a bag of flesh and bones with a set expiration date!
Here's how I'm wasting away my remaining years: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153729538523439
Rest in peace, Merle. It's a shame he never got around to learning about and writing about techies... although if you use your imagination his "Here In Frisco" is pretty damned close:
It's four a.m. in New York City, three a.m. in Dallas
The night is still early here in Frisco
Market street's still going, the same old shows are showing
And I'm still all alone here in Frisco
They say it's raining in Chicago, but it's cold and clear in Denver
Been windy all night long here in Frisco
Trolley cars are clinging, the big Bay Town's swinging
And I'm still all alone here in Frisco
The way I feel tonight, I won't be staying long
But when I leave, I'll leave my heart just like in the famous song
Trolley cars are clinging, the big Bay Town's swinging
And I'm still all alone here in Frisco
And I'm still all alone here in Frisco
---
Yup, and I'm still all alone here in Frisco, sitting around with my Artificial Love Machine and my Oculus VR wired directly in to the Google-Apple-Amazon mothership circling the earth... full-stack, full vertical integration, corporate assisted lifestyle... pumps me full of vitamins and movies made by computers.
That this doesn't sound like the living embodiment of hell on earth, I don't know what the fuck does...
The regular crowd shuffles in
There's an old man sitting next to me
Making love to his tonic and gin
And the waitress is practicing politics
As the businessmen slowly get stoned
Yes they're sharing a drink they call loneliness
But it's better than drinking alone
Sing us a song you're the piano man
Sing us a song tonight
Well we're all in the mood for a melody
And you've got us feeling alright
To live these lives of unparalleled, almost supernatural greatness, and then end up embittered... The stoics did nothing wrong.
EDIT: to clarify, I'm not dismissing Miller's critique at all, I'm noting that someone living, literally, a rock star life, ends up in a deeply inhumane and, potentially, embittering environment.
-Zhuangzi
- Steven Erikson, "Gardens of the Moon"
Not least he's unhappy because R&RHOF tried to charge him $10k per member to include his band in the ceremony.
It shouldn't be hard to understand the difference.
The stoics would have thought the music industry is terrible. Because it is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/arts/music/after-his-induc...
"You've been selected a speaker for our super elite conference! You can invite your friends to attend for the paltry sum of $XYZ. Oh and it'll also cost you $ABC..."
Link provided originally has good back-story. Either should work fine though. Quite a read.
"You know, they say it takes a whole pack of wolves to take down a moose, cuz one-on-one, that moose would smack them down. It’s like being in the music business — you got your managers, your ex-managers, your ex-bandmates, your ex-labels, your ex-wives, your lawyers, your tax attorneys … hell, that sound more like a pack of hyenas to me. You know, I was once told by an ex-manager, “Son, you’re worth more dead than alive. Cuz when you’re dead, we can sell you off in pieces.” That’s the way it works around here. You don’t believe me? Why don’t you try asking Jim Morrison, or Jimi Hendrix, or Janis Joplin, or Kurt Cobain, or Amy Winehouse? I’m pretty sure they’re gonna take my side of the story. Sometimes I think they’re the lucky ones. They don’t have to deal with these douchebags"
Record companies provide three basic functions to artists:
A source of financing.
A distribution system.
A marketing department.
There are alternative channels for each of these now:
Financing has largely been democratized by things like kickstarter et al.
Distribution is a solved problem via either all the services largely propping up the 3 major labels or else soundcloud, youtube etc.
There's plenty of independent marketing companies that will "work your record" for a fee.
(Wenner didn't do the interview, of course; he just pays and publishes whoever did.)
see: hollywood, video games, venture backed technology startups, fashion.
all these verticals are run by assholes and basically suck unless you become a successful indie outfit.
p.s. it doesn't surprise me the hall of fame was started by a bunch of lawyers and people from rolling stone, a magazine with basically zero journalistic integrity, at best.
In the show, Loggins complains about the one album wonder Blue Jeans Committee that you can be working in the business for 30 years and have many hits and never even get invited to the ceremony (which describes Loggins.)
Steve's band gets paid six figures a year each and flies coach to each gig. Steve flies in on a private jet and takes home multiple millions each year.
Am I missing some deeper story? They have an 82 page form 990 on their own website. Most non-profits don't disclose anywhere near as much, and few post it on their own site.
There are so many barriers to this.
They need a venue at which to perform regularly, which helps somewhat to promote their performance. These are becoming few and far between. They are not likely to make much money for said performances (of course this depends on the size of the venue and the following they've managed to develop.)
Forgot about making any money selling recordings. People expect music to be free nowadays. The days of selling $10 cd's at your show are pretty much over. Maybe if you cater to an older crowd that isn't hip to the streaming/Youtube culture you can sell a few cd's here and there but certainly nowhere near enough to support yourself.
So... the "healthy primary income" you describe would be nearly impossible to achieve in today's environment. Most local musicians need to supplement their income working other jobs such as barista, Uber driver etc.
Definitely interested in this.
The musical skills might include reading literacy, proficiency in improvisational idioms and the ability to teach these things.
The more difficult realm might be establishing a working band of professionals, per individual the professional attitude would be worth more than sheer musical skill. Professionaly minded people working together can build skills that will eventually surpass what an individual can bring alone.
Networking is important, there's lots of ways to engage with your immediate community and it has always helped me to reach across as many professional aisles as I can. How many high functioning professional musicians do you think the average person knows? You should be one of them for the people close to you.
EDIT: I'd like to add venue versatility. Most discussion seems to be around entertainment venues but what about educational, accompaniment, theathrical, ceremonial, religious (I do not personally partake in this).
Makes Steve seem like a bit of a jerk, imho.
Question is why haven't the artists spoken out about the hall of fame over the years? Note some are backing him up now.
- Marketing/Promotion
- Distribution
- A barrier to entry for new artists
I've wonder why a service that just let people sell their own MP3s and albums (+/- streaming) on the internet is not enough (assuming the other things a record company offers were split up and handled by other focused companies).
My overly optimistic side thinks it's just a matter of no one having built a service that is transparently, obviously, and enforcably out to do nothing but enable musicians to distribute their own material and profit, but skeptical me is well... skeptical.
It's such a nuanced conversation, I wonder if there are any correspondences between someone from tech and someone from the music biz that I could read.
Or, in more simple terms, no musician wants to be seen as ungrateful for career recognition.
I'm a huge Steve Miller fan - his career spanned pop, blues, psychedelic and folk, and his bands have included great talent. But the recording game moved on. The money in music is now in performance. And he's still touring [1].
Music and movies and other forms of entertainment have been fantastic ways to launder money for a long long time. Maybe someone should to create a way for independent artists to "sell" for those who need a way to legally attribute their profit to the sales of something else.
Seriously, that was awesome.
I'm glad he can afford to say those things. It's a shame more can't otherwise there might just be change.
Edit: I wonder if Mr. Miller ever tried something like that.
It seemed like nothing was working as I planned, except the sight of her in that bikini. I had a bunch of camping equipment, and thought, "Ahh--this will be a breeze. I'll just pitch a tent when the sun goes down. First night--ticket. (The state parks, private parks are completely filled months in advance by smart travelers. I had no idea they were so popular.)
Second night--I ended up in Hotel California. I believe in Santa Barbara. The hotel was horrid, but it looked nice from the outside.
There she was this beautiful, innocent blond, sitting on the edge of the bed. She said, "Well--at least we won't get hassled by the cops?". I went to get dinner, and even bought a candle. This was our first vacation together, and nothing worked out.
Out of feeling bad about the room, I told her a lie. A lie over Chinese food, and the candle.
I told her this is where the musicians stayed when they wrote that song--Hotel California. The look on her face was priceless. I was in too deep, and couldn't tell her the truth.
I remember limping my Chevy back home. I still can't get her out of my mind though. I remember she wore a bikini, and wondered why people were looking. Yes--she was that innocent. We went shopping, and I bought her a one piece bathing suit. I told her this is the fashion here. I lied again. I have no idea what she saw in me.
I can see the conversation now in that Hotel in Santa Barbara:
Clerk: Sorry. You can never leave.
You: Can't you take the blond?
Clerk: Only if you buy her a one piece.
You: Which piece? She already has two.
Clerk: A one piece, it's the style around here.
You: Ok ok...
Apropos of nothing, another song about the music industry sucking is Man of Constant Sorrow by the Soggy Bottom Boys.
Edit: The people modding you down are just jealous.
See http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/imogen-heap-shows-how-music-smart-c...
There are plenty of places like bandcamp where you can find great music and buy it directly from the artist with them taking most of the cut, but the numbers of people buying are so low it doesn't matter. With labels, I've literally watched them take a nobody band and decide they're going to be the next thing. They finish their album, label foots the bill for a big music video, PR team call$ pitchfork or world star or whatever site is genre appropriate, band gets a frontpage feature, radio play start$, and next thing you know album sales are way up, tour tickets are sold out and label made bank.
The problem is discovery and curation and ethereum doesn't fix that.
Unless you can get popular on youtube.
Direct link to the Imogen Heap alpha: https://alpha.ujomusic.com/#/imogen_heap/tiny_human/tiny_hum...
Harsh crowd.