• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

MP3 "sharing," rising costs for waning pay... the end for the professional musician?

DanielleMuscato

DanielleMuscato

Jun 19, 2004
4,782
83
42
Columbia, Missouri, USA
www.daniellemuscato.com
Disclosures
Endorsing Artist, Schroeder Cabinets
#1
I really wonder what the live music scene will look like in 5-10 years. We already know that studio recordings are giving way from revenue-generating, salable products to promotional tools for live events (thanks to the internet and mp3 "sharing"). Now that live shows and touring are barely/not profitable due to gas price increases and general cost-of-living increases (yet clubs and fans are unwilling, thus far, to pay more - perhaps in part due to this mindset that "music should be free," and because of the influx of amateurs who will perform for drinks only, or even for free, or even pay-to-play)... is this the end for professional artists?

I know that the term "starving artist" has been around for centuries, and of course there will always be corporate bands playing covers for private events, weddings, etc, but I'm talking about original bands touring in vans, the classic "road warrior" idea we all have in our heads - it just seems that it's no longer economically feasible, at least, not until alternative fuels permeate the market, and/or somebody figures out a way to make a living by spending a lot of $ in a studio and then giving away the finished recordings (whether you want to or not).

Are we, in fact, in the t-shirt business? It seems like stickers and t-shirts are the only thing fans are willing to really spend money on anymore. IME at least, clubs don't want to pay more just because gas prices have gone up (after all, their own supplies have risen in cost proportionally, as well), and fans certainly don't want to pay more, for the same reason. If we're just gonna sell stickers & t-shirts, frankly, it would be easier and more cost-effective to sell them over the internet instead of basically acting as traveling salesmen, like we're doing now. We certainly can't compete with local bands when it comes to our cost to put on a show, and they have a leg-up when it comes to local promotion, as well (home turf and all that).

Sure, it's easy enough to get hits to your website, but unless you use Google Adsense, that doesn't translate into a living or even covering costs, if you're not making it up through CD sales *or* live shows.

I was discussing the issue with my dad, who's a successful local business owner (times two), and he mentioned sponsorships - get businesses, big or local, to basically pay the costs, in exchange for serious hyping before, during, after, and at shows - could be banners or logos or even actual "This program is brought to you by _____" into the mic, like the good ol' days of Geritol and Twenty-One. A lot of major concerts already do this, and of course many venues are named after their sponsors, but I don't know many bands that do this on a smaller scale except specifically with music equipment endorsement deals. But hey, musicians need cell phone service, motor oil, pizza, toothpaste, shoes, beer, etc too. It seems there would be lots of opportunities there, if fans are no longer willing or able to support musicians directly.

What worries me more than anything else, though, is this idea that music should be free, and that so many amateur musicians are willing to give away their music, and this somehow translates in the minds of fans to the idea that they shouldn't have to pay for ANYTHING music-related. I've talked to so many people who don't even realize ripping & copying CDs is illegal. Many people I've talked to even think that a copyright has no legal meaning other than that credit must be given! (For example, I seriously know some people who think that, so long as you write "Copyright 2008 Treasure Junkie," on the CD-R when you burn it, that it's totally okay to copy a CD and give it to a friend, as though the "exposure" somehow makes up for the lost sale). I've got news for these folks - exposure is only valuable if it LEADS to future sales, and even then, it is at the discretion of the copyright holder whether to give that copy away, not anyone who happens to have a hold of one.

I do some photography for bands on occasion, and I have to tell you this story - Once, I saw some photos I shot of a band on a fan's MySpace page, complete with my copyright notice at the bottom of the photo ("(C) 2006 DaveMuscato.com. All rights reserved.")

I emailed the woman and said, "Hi, I noticed that you're using one of my photographs on your MySpace page. I own the copyright to that photograph and since you haven't licensed it from me, you must remove it immediately from your page. If you are interested in licensing this photo (or any of my other photos) for your own use, please let me know" or words to that effect.

She had the balls to write me back and say, "It's okay; I put the copyright in the caption" (she had captioned it with the same text included on the photograph itself). I wrote her back and said, "No, it's *NOT* okay; I own that photograph and I didn't give you permission to post it on your MySpace. I sell non-exclusive digital use licenses if you want to use it, but unless you buy a license from me, you have to remove it now or I will be forced to sue you in order to protect my copyright claim." (Many people don't know that if you fail to sue when you spot a violation of your copyright, under certain precedents, you can actually lose your right to sue for other violations in the future).

She removed the photo after that, but I was just amazed at how little people understand about copyright law. She actually believed that simply giving me credit for the photo meant that she was in compliance!

Anyway, my point is, with home-recording technology getting so absurdly cheap, digital distribution becoming a logistical walk in the park, and the attitude from many day-job-working-hobbyist-musos that music should be free (and is, if you don't mind mediocre quality - no offense intended), what will happen to the original, touring bands? Maybe we should all just stay home and stream live video over the internet pay-per-view instead of touring. Or are virtual performances on Second Life the answer? Should we just get day jobs? Or maybe play covers instead, get paid from the bar instead of the door, and forget paying to record original music and trying to sell it?

Something has got to give. Will people eventually get fed up with untrained musicians? This is *not* a stab at anyone, not even any specific genre, but I'm just saying, if you have to work a day job in order to "afford" to play music at night, chances are you are not also practicing 6-8 hours a day and perfecting your craft.

What are your thoughts? I'm all ears!
 
#2
The beauty of a capitalist society is that it will all even out in the wash. If there is a demand for live music and the good bands all quit playing due to costs or whatever reason, then people will HAVE to pay more to see them, or be content without. What you will get is that people will slowly weed out the less professional bands and the bands that are more professional and cater to the crowd will get paid more due to demand.

Now, if there are bands that will play for free and they have as much or more talent than the professional bands, then the professional bands will suffer... or have to bring more to the table. My thinking on this though is that in order to achieve that level of performance, you have to sink the time into it... and for that to be worth it, you will want to be compensated or you will grow tired of the grind.

Understand, that I am you typical "9-5'er" that plays on the weekends. I am NOT a "professional" musician. I am in it for the fun, not the money. BUT my band does need to get compensated for our time and there is enough demand for our entertainment to justify it. If we did not get compensated, then we would still play together, just not at a venue. At that point I feel that you are being taken advantage of.

Disclaimer: We have played charity and community gigs for free... but that is way different. Nobody profited off of our work and it is just a good karma thing to do. :p

About the lady who "stole" your pictures: There are 2 forces working against you there.

(1) People just don't understand and respect technology. Technology has progressed faster than ethics and the web has been drawn into a "wild wild west".

(2) People are getting more and more of a sense of entitlement. They assume that what you put out there is for the community to use how they see fit. They can do what they want with it.

Neither are an excuse, and I disagree with both... but that seems to be the way it is. All I can say is that you did the right thing and educated her. All you can do is just set a good example and try to do the right thing yourself.

It is frustrating at times, but it will sort itself out eventually!

Ox.
 
#4
Definitely looked into it, and am still looking into it. Alternative fuel vehicles are getting cheaper and better all the time, but I don't think we're quite there yet. That would certainly help, but I think of gas prices as a symptom of the problem, rather than the root of it, if that makes sense.

What do you guys think of MP3 sharing?

We spent about $5k on our last album and although a lot of people (from informal polls we've done) have our music, like it, and listen to it, our sales are far short of our costs. We're talking about doing our next album as a live stereo recording instead of going into the studio, and just having it mastered professionally, instead of going all out investing in studio time. Plus, that would give us a "built-in" market for it - we could charge $10 admission instead of $5, and mail CD-Rs of the show to everyone who came once it was mastered. After that, we would probably sell the recordings for $5, to cover our costs and try to get more volume in sales - despite inflation, I think the days of fans paying $10 for CDs are coming to a close.... so why bother spending money making them? The majors have certainly caught on to this (and are signing/investing in fewer unproven artists accordingly, preferring that they invest in themselves and build a following on their own first). Some of the biggest and best studios are really hurting for business, or even going under, because no one wants to spend $1m to make an album anymore, if people are just going to steal it anyway.

What are your thoughts?
 
#5
I've seen nothing change in live shows at all. I'm talking about underground bands here, bands that despite their popularity in certain circles will never see MTV, and where a big venue is a House of Blues. Where the "starving artist" cliche is a norm. Once again, nothing seems to be different other than bands are also selling their stuff via Itunes. But no one is putting a halt to putting out CD's.

I think it's absurd to say that people should absolutely buy a band's CD anymore just because so much garbage is being put out across the board, underground and mainstream. I want to hear what I may potentially be buying. If I like something enough, I'll buy it. Sometimes I'll like something, but not enough to actually buy the CD, but maybe I'll buy a shirt or something, and I'll still probably see them live. I know people that think I'm weird for still purchasing CD's when I've already downloaded them, but if I like what a band is doing enough, I want to support them.

The downloading issue is a double edged sword of sorts... Because it DOES get the bands music out there more. There are so many bands that I would have never heard of or checked out more in depth (other than a single song from Myspace) had it not been for me downloading their CD's. Right now I'm listening to a CD that I do not actually own. AND I'm wearing one of their shirts that I just received in the mail today. Furthermore, I'm seeing them play in June at a big underground music fest in Indianapolis that I'm bringing 150 bucks to and I plan on spending it all on CD's and shirts regardless if I already have the CD downloaded or not. So, am I still a bad person for downloading music? But that's just me, there are also people who never pay a single cent to support a band.

A few months ago a kid I met at one of my bands shows IM's me and tells me that he was on Soulseek... It's a file sharing program, you have friends on there and you can search through whatever files they choose to share. This kid said that he saw both of my bands demo CD's on another persons files. One demo was recorded in our drummers basement, the other ones where recorded in a studio. We had a friend that was working at a good studio but still paid money to record there. All of these where on CD-R's that we spraypainted different colors and stenciled our initials on some. Put them in CD's sleeves, wrote our myspace URL on the back and sold them for a buck each. I'm sure we've never made our money back from that but I was happy to hear our stuff was being shared. Now maybe someone will see our demos when they are looking through this persons soulseek files and decide to download them and maybe they will like it. We then have a new fan, someone who may like us enough to spread the word about us, or who will come to a show and may actually buy the demo, or at least a pin. I have no problem with that at all.

As far as the picture thing. I think it's just a good rule of thumb to assume what you put on the internet, will be "stolen". Period. I mean, any website where you upload pictures will warn you of this. I can't speak about the legality issues as I know nothing about that stuff.

Anyways, that's my two cents/ point of view on the whole thing.
 
#6
Dave Muscato said:
I really wonder what the live music scene will look like in 5-10 years. We already know that studio recordings are giving way from revenue-generating, salable products to promotional tools for live events (thanks to the internet and mp3 "sharing"). Now that live shows and touring are barely/not profitable due to gas price increases and general cost-of-living increases (yet clubs and fans are unwilling, thus far, to pay more - perhaps in part due to this mindset that "music should be free," and because of the influx of amateurs who will perform for drinks only, or even for free, or even pay-to-play)... is this the end for professional artists?

I know that the term "starving artist" has been around for centuries, and of course there will always be corporate bands playing covers for private events, weddings, etc, but I'm talking about original bands touring in vans, the classic "road warrior" idea we all have in our heads - it just seems that it's no longer economically feasible, at least, not until alternative fuels permeate the market, and/or somebody figures out a way to make a living by spending a lot of $ in a studio and then giving away the finished recordings (whether you want to or not).

Are we, in fact, in the t-shirt business? It seems like stickers and t-shirts are the only thing fans are willing to really spend money on anymore. IME at least, clubs don't want to pay more just because gas prices have gone up (after all, their own supplies have risen in cost proportionally, as well), and fans certainly don't want to pay more, for the same reason. If we're just gonna sell stickers & t-shirts, frankly, it would be easier and more cost-effective to sell them over the internet instead of basically acting as traveling salesmen, like we're doing now. We certainly can't compete with local bands when it comes to our cost to put on a show, and they have a leg-up when it comes to local promotion, as well (home turf and all that).

Sure, it's easy enough to get hits to your website, but unless you use Google Adsense, that doesn't translate into a living or even covering costs, if you're not making it up through CD sales *or* live shows.

I was discussing the issue with my dad, who's a successful local business owner (times two), and he mentioned sponsorships - get businesses, big or local, to basically pay the costs, in exchange for serious hyping before, during, after, and at shows - could be banners or logos or even actual "This program is brought to you by _____" into the mic, like the good ol' days of Geritol and Twenty-One. A lot of major concerts already do this, and of course many venues are named after their sponsors, but I don't know many bands that do this on a smaller scale except specifically with music equipment endorsement deals. But hey, musicians need cell phone service, motor oil, pizza, toothpaste, shoes, beer, etc too. It seems there would be lots of opportunities there, if fans are no longer willing or able to support musicians directly.

What worries me more than anything else, though, is this idea that music should be free, and that so many amateur musicians are willing to give away their music, and this somehow translates in the minds of fans to the idea that they shouldn't have to pay for ANYTHING music-related. I've talked to so many people who don't even realize ripping & copying CDs is illegal. Many people I've talked to even think that a copyright has no legal meaning other than that credit must be given! (For example, I seriously know some people who think that, so long as you write "Copyright 2008 Treasure Junkie," on the CD-R when you burn it, that it's totally okay to copy a CD and give it to a friend, as though the "exposure" somehow makes up for the lost sale). I've got news for these folks - exposure is only valuable if it LEADS to future sales, and even then, it is at the discretion of the copyright holder whether to give that copy away, not anyone who happens to have a hold of one.

I do some photography for bands on occasion, and I have to tell you this story - Once, I saw some photos I shot of a band on a fan's MySpace page, complete with my copyright notice at the bottom of the photo ("(C) 2006 DaveMuscato.com. All rights reserved.")

I emailed the woman and said, "Hi, I noticed that you're using one of my photographs on your MySpace page. I own the copyright to that photograph and since you haven't licensed it from me, you must remove it immediately from your page. If you are interested in licensing this photo (or any of my other photos) for your own use, please let me know" or words to that effect.

She had the balls to write me back and say, "It's okay; I put the copyright in the caption" (she had captioned it with the same text included on the photograph itself). I wrote her back and said, "No, it's *NOT* okay; I own that photograph and I didn't give you permission to post it on your MySpace. I sell non-exclusive digital use licenses if you want to use it, but unless you buy a license from me, you have to remove it now or I will be forced to sue you in order to protect my copyright claim." (Many people don't know that if you fail to sue when you spot a violation of your copyright, under certain precedents, you can actually lose your right to sue for other violations in the future).

She removed the photo after that, but I was just amazed at how little people understand about copyright law. She actually believed that simply giving me credit for the photo meant that she was in compliance!

Anyway, my point is, with home-recording technology getting so absurdly cheap, digital distribution becoming a logistical walk in the park, and the attitude from many day-job-working-hobbyist-musos that music should be free (and is, if you don't mind mediocre quality - no offense intended), what will happen to the original, touring bands? Maybe we should all just stay home and stream live video over the internet pay-per-view instead of touring. Or are virtual performances on Second Life the answer? Should we just get day jobs? Or maybe play covers instead, get paid from the bar instead of the door, and forget paying to record original music and trying to sell it?

Something has got to give. Will people eventually get fed up with untrained musicians? This is *not* a stab at anyone, not even any specific genre, but I'm just saying, if you have to work a day job in order to "afford" to play music at night, chances are you are not also practicing 6-8 hours a day and perfecting your craft.

What are your thoughts? I'm all ears!
Click to expand...

I agree totally with your analysis and I am just glad that I was around in the "Golden Age" of live music - from the late 60s to early 90s!

So I can remember how good it was as a young teenager to be able to see great live acts every week - like Led Zep,Yes,Genesis (Peter Gabriel),Jeff Beck,Rory Gallagher, Robin Trower etc.

And then be inspired to get up and play by punk/new wave.

I don't see that kids today will be be inspired to be musicians...:(
 
#7
I want to say that I was flattered that this woman liked my photo enough to use it on her MySpace. However, the people who DID pay me to license it - specifically, the band - would probably be annoyed if they knew I was letting other people do it for free. Even though it's basically unenforceable, I do have the right to protect my copyrights, and frankly, my photo equipment wasn't free, know what I mean?

I have no problem with bands who choose to give away their music, so long as fans understand that this doesn't mean that all music from every artist is now free for the taking. Giving away music is a great way to promote your band, and bands and labels have been doing this for decades now with great success (as far as getting their name out there). But if you're trying to make a living from it, promotion alone isn't worth it - it has to lead to sales. I know that sounds crass, but unless you want a steady supply of basement recordings, someone is going to have to put in money. That's either gonna come from sponsors/advertisers, the band themselves working day jobs, or fans buying the music. No third-party investor (i.e. record label) is going to put in $ without an exit strategy, if there really are no sales or profit incentives on the horizon. Considering that the band is putting in all the work (the hours for writing and recording, cost of instruments, time spent practicing, talent, effort, etc) and the fans are the ones getting the benefit, it makes sense that they should cover the costs, either directly (by buying the music) or indirectly (advertisers buying it on their behalf).

Maybe I should say that professional studio recordings are coming to an end... I think that lower-quality home recordings/project studio recordings, as well as live recordings, are probably becoming much MORE common.

Unfortunately, if pro studios are coming to an end, that also means the next generation of really top-notch guys in the business - producers, engineers, session players - the guys who practice for hours a day and study at music school and intern for years to hone their craft - are going to go into other, growing fields.

I like listening to well-produced recordings. By chance or sheer volume/numbers, I know that there is still going to be good music, but are the Quincy Jones/Rick Rubin/George Clinton days of top-notch music coming to an end in favor of user-created (i.e. "free") content?
 
#8
Metal Matt said:
I've seen nothing change in live shows at all.
Click to expand...

Check out the gas prices thread here:

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=435618

Right here on Talkbass are several perfect examples of your fellow musos turning down gigs because it's no longer worth it to travel, money-wise.

Metal Matt said:
I'm talking about underground bands here, bands that despite their popularity in certain circles will never see MTV, and where a big venue is a House of Blues. Where the "starving artist" cliche is a norm. Once again, nothing seems to be different other than bands are also selling their stuff via Itunes. But no one is putting a halt to putting out CD's.
Click to expand...

On the contrary; my own band, for example, has decided not to record our next album in a proper studio (in favor of a live recording), because there's no point in spending money we won't recoup if we're just gonna give it away, anyway (whether we want to or not).

Metal Matt said:
I think it's absurd to say that people should absolutely buy a band's CD anymore just because so much garbage is being put out across the board, underground and mainstream. I want to hear what I may potentially be buying. If I like something enough, I'll buy it. Sometimes I'll like something, but not enough to actually buy the CD, but maybe I'll buy a shirt or something, and I'll still probably see them live. I know people that think I'm weird for still purchasing CD's when I've already downloaded them, but if I like what a band is doing enough, I want to support them.
Click to expand...

I agree that people shouldn't be forced to buy CDs, or feel as though they are forced, and I'm not sure where you're getting that. I am simply saying that fans are less willing to buy CDs than they used to be, and I attribute this to file-sharing, and also rising cost-of-living and rising gas-prices that effect our fans, too. Regardless of the cause, this is a problem across the board - major labels are seeing far fewer CD sales, and as a result, they are spending less on recordings in the first place, signing fewer new/unestablished artists, and even dipping into funds traditionally reserved for the artists - tour monies and merch, for example.

You are definitely the exception when it comes to buying a CD when you already have the mp3s. Most people choose one or the other - you said yourself that people think you're weird for doing this. Maybe this question is better suited to the general public than this very biased forum of musicians! lol

Metal Matt said:
The downloading issue is a double edged sword of sorts... Because it DOES get the bands music out there more. There are so many bands that I would have never heard of or checked out more in depth (other than a single song from Myspace) had it not been for me downloading their CD's. Right now I'm listening to a CD that I do not actually own. AND I'm wearing one of their shirts that I just received in the mail today. Furthermore, I'm seeing them play in June at a big underground music fest in Indianapolis that I'm bringing 150 bucks to and I plan on spending it all on CD's and shirts regardless if I already have the CD downloaded or not. So, am I still a bad person for downloading music? But that's just me, there are also people who never pay a single cent to support a band.
Click to expand...

I never said you were a bad person in the first place. I'm just saying that it's harder for bands to even so much as break even anymore, because gas prices (and thus tour costs) have risen, but pay hasn't. Combine this with mp3 "sharing" replacing CD sales, and fans with less disposable income (thanks to their own rising costs-of-living and gas prices) and the already-slim chance of making a living touring and playing original music drops even further. Day jobs may be a necessity from now on, which means the quality of music available will go down, since (formally professional) musicians will have less time and energy to devote to their craft.

Metal Matt said:
A few months ago a kid I met at one of my bands shows IM's me and tells me that he was on Soulseek... It's a file sharing program, you have friends on there and you can search through whatever files they choose to share. This kid said that he saw both of my bands demo CD's on another persons files. One demo was recorded in our drummers basement, the other ones where recorded in a studio. We had a friend that was working at a good studio but still paid money to record there. All of these where on CD-R's that we spraypainted different colors and stenciled our initials on some. Put them in CD's sleeves, wrote our myspace URL on the back and sold them for a buck each. I'm sure we've never made our money back from that but I was happy to hear our stuff was being shared. Now maybe someone will see our demos when they are looking through this persons soulseek files and decide to download them and maybe they will like it. We then have a new fan, someone who may like us enough to spread the word about us, or who will come to a show and may actually buy the demo, or at least a pin. I have no problem with that at all.
Click to expand...

As I said about, I have no problem at all with bands giving away their music, if they think it makes business sense to do so. Personally, at least with regard to my band's last album, I can't afford to give it away unless I'm making up that lost revenue somewhere else - I spent about $5k on that album and I *don't* have a day-job. Since I'm not making it up from live shows and it goes without saying that I'm not making it up from CD sales, I'm ****ed, huh? Time for a day-job? Eventually, hobbyists will be all that's left on the original music scene, if this continues.

Metal Matt said:
As far as the picture thing. I think it's just a good rule of thumb to assume what you put on the internet, will be "stolen". Period. I mean, any website where you upload pictures will warn you of this. I can't speak about the legality issues as I know nothing about that stuff.
Click to expand...

I think it's just a good rule of thumb to assume that when you drive on the highway, people are going to speed. Period. I mean, on any long-distance trip along the interstates will have signs warning you that speeding kills, and they even have nice little signs every few hundred meters that remind you of the speed limit. Let's just get rid of speed limits since people are gonna speed anyway, sound good? ;) I mean, think how much we would save by not paying all those cops to sit out there and wait for speeders. Sure, we would lose some revenue from the tickets themselves, and I'm sure we would spend a LOT in emergency services from all the accidents, but it seems to work okay on the Autobahn :p

Metal Matt said:
Anyways, that's my two cents/ point of view on the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing; I appreciate your time and input.
 
#9
I think the trick to success is in striking a realistic balance. I have seen a lot of bands fail by trying to act professional when they didn't have the fan power to back it up. How many of us know, or have been in bands with a thousand dollars of debt and a few dozen boxes of unsold CDs to show for it? I know a lot of people, including my first band, that fell into that trap. And I've also seen bands achieve much greater success through much more humble means. My friends' punk band has been gaining a lot of regional success lately, and they've been doing it with some home burnt CDs and a few hundred copies of a 10" record. All their investments have been small, but most importantly, realistic. They didn't press their record until they'd proven their ability to sell their homemade CD. I think if more bands acted like that, and we're so worried about seeming professional, we'd have a lot less kids in debt from crappy albums that nobody wanted to buy.

And in that respect, I think we actually live in a golden era right now when it comes to equality of opportunity. You might complain about the quality of amateur recordings, but one thing is for sure: The average basement recording in 2008 is MILES better than it was even just ten years ago. Thanks to Peter Quistguard, everybody who wants unlimited multitracking and high quality effects can get it for nothing (ethics aside). If you know what you're doing, you can do better work with a few hundred dollars worth of equipment hooked to a preexisting computer than you can at a local studio where they'll rob you and kick you back out when you're time is up (and obviously this depends on the studio, but I've heard some damn good home recordings and some pretty terrible work done in commercial studios, especially one's catering to independent bands). So bands don't have to throw down money at a studio for something that might not actually even sound good when they get it back. Furthermore, due to technology, they can release it on their own. They can put it online for free or for a fee. They can burn a few dozen copies at home, and make them look pretty decent. The point is, they don't have to put down a couple grand for a minimum order of 1000 CDs when they're not sure if they can sell them. It's not like the mid nineties where a home recording meant a four track demo released on cassette with xeroxed art.

Speaking of that, though, a few years back at The Avalon in Boston, I bought a home burnt CD with xeroxed cover art from a woman named Kimya Dawson who has since achieved commercial success by having her songs appear in the movie Juno. I think at that show she was also selling homemade T shirts that she drew on with sharpies. And I'm sure there a lot of people here that cringe at the idea of marketing themselves like that having the gall to call themselves professionals, but in her case, it proved to be a good business decision.
 
#10
not_jason said:
If you know what you're doing...
Click to expand...

That's my point, though. If there's no money in it, people aren't going to spend 12 hours a day developing a golden ear. The next generation of top producers are going to become lawyers or doctors instead because these are growth industries (or law is, at least, haha).

It takes a long time and a lot of hard work to "know what you're doing." There are even schools for this stuff that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (Berklee, for example).

I don't *want* to listen to something some guy threw together in his basement - I want to listen to Don Was behind the desk, you know what I mean? Don Was did not get to be such a great producer by working a day job and then coming home and fiddling with plug-ins on an iMac on the weekends. He got to be a great producer by dedicating his life to the craft.

If there's no money it in, and it's only for hobbyists who don't mind breaking even or even losing money, this is the last generation of Quincy Joneses. Some of the best recording studios are already going under for lack of business. I know that a lot of producers and session players are in the same boat - people think they can do this at home, but the truth is, it would take 10,000 tries and 10,000 hours to do what a Quincy Jones can do in 30 seconds by saying, "Why don't we try this?"

For sake of example, let's say that it just wasn't worth it to take trips in airplanes anymore. Say that airplane "kits" - do-it-yourself parts packages you buy on eBay and assemble in your garage - became so cheap that people could make their own airplanes in a couple of hours for a couple thousand bucks. And all around you, up and down every street, you could take your pick of 5 different friends who could fly you wherever you wanted to go, and only charged $50 for the trip, too.

Would you pay $50 to fly in your buddy's home-made airplane to Italy? Or would you rather pay $400 to have a professional pilot with a safety standards manual 6 inches thick fly you there?

Say that these cheap airplanes were becoming so popular, simply because the cost of entry is so low compared to the millions of dollars that "real" airplanes cost, that all the airlines went out of business and your only choice was to fly "Nextdoor Neighbor Airlines."

My guess is that you'd see a lot fewer international vacations ;)
 
#11
Lets see what Thomas Jefferson would say on the subject of file sharing. No its not a new debate, it goes back to even before the time of the founding fathers.

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

so IMHO case closed, file sharing is not stealing because NOTHING HAS BEEN STOLDEN!!!
 
#12
Sonic Napalm, case NOT closed - he was talking about the idea of no taxation without representation, not copyright law! :rollno:

In fact, copyright law was one of the first issues addressed in the first drafts of the United States Codes. I can't remember where I read this, but copyrights, even back then, were important enough to merit serious consideration for the start of a new country. I believe it was Dave Kusek's book, "The Future of Music," that talks about this - I'm out of town right now and don't have the book with me, but I'll get back to you.
 
#13
Sonic Napalm said:
Lets see what Thomas Jefferson would say on the subject of file sharing. No its not a new debate, it goes back to even before the time of the founding fathers.

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

so IMHO case closed, file sharing is not stealing because NOTHING HAS BEEN STOLDEN!!!
Click to expand...

Imagine if Thomas Jefferson would only give his thoughts to those who paid for them? He might have a tough time getting paid for them.

It's progress, survival of the fittest IMHO. In the late 40s and early 50s, people in big bands used to be concerned that amplifiers would put musicians out of work - small combos replaced big bands, true, but suddenly there were way more small combos getting gigs everywhere, and this little thing called Rock and Roll came into being. People used to be concerned that synths would put musicians out of business, and granted none of us playing in bars are using 9-piece string groups or 12 piece horn sections to back us up like in the old big band days, but neither live nor recorded music were killed by the synth (well, except during the 80s :)).

Things will be different - we will be forced to adapt and change the way we do things. Like using MySpace, Facebook, YouTube and file sharing to our advantage. We might have to get creative about not just making music and distributing music but also about consuming music.

Revolutions are painful for all who cannot adapt. Two things I am certain about are that 1) people will always be playing music, whether they get paid or not, whether they do it full-time or not, and 2) people will always be listening and dancing to it - preferably for free.
 
#14
Dave Muscato said:
Sonic Napalm, case NOT closed - he was talking about the idea of no taxation without representation, not copyright law! :rollno:
Click to expand...

Actually TJ was talking about ideas. One of those ideas today is that recorded music is free, and it is catching on in the same way as lighting a candle from someone else's. The problem with file sharing is that the musician is not analogous to the original candle holder. Any person who owns the digital file (not necessarily the copyright) is analogous to the original candle holder, who allows others to light their candles from his - he still has his, and now they have theirs. The problem is in how does the guy who used to sell matches now make money with all these people lighting candles off of each other? :)

We first have to realize that we didn't invent fire (music), or even matches (physical media, i.e. CDs), and that our fire is no different than the free stuff (on the radio or the internet). :) Thinking about that more may lead us to understand what our value has been and what it could be.

Are we primarily business people, or are we primarily performers and artists? People don't pay business people for their business, they buy access to the performance or access to the distribution of a recorded performance, and business people have been standing in the way, IMHO, filtering money that is intended for the artist. Now they're not as needed, artists can do their own promotion and distribution more and more, and people will vote with dollars as they always have done.

It's a brave new world! Find a way to embrace it! For some that may mean getting a real job. :) jk about the real job part, btw...
 
#15
I think whats really gonna happen is that the in between musician/engineer is going to disappear. There is and I think will always be a market for top notch professional recordings played my top notch professional musicians and there always be people who just like playing making home recordings and playing local shows. I think its the in between bands and producers that are on their way out. You're right there is less and less money to be made there. I don't think you can put as much blame on downloading as you do. I think it has more to do with costs of gas and grocery constantly moving up, digital distribution making it so people really don't want to pay $10 for a CD they've haven't heard at least a couple tracks from, and the fact that there are more and more bands putting out decent recordings.

I've got more to say but my brain just shut down. Working and being exhausted can do that to you so I'll keep an eye on this thread.
 
#16
BillMason said:
Are we primarily business people, or are we primarily performers and artists? People don't pay business people for their business, they buy access to the performance or access to the distribution of a recorded performance, and business people have been standing in the way, IMHO, filtering money that is intended for the artist. Now they're not as needed, artists can do their own promotion and distribution more and more, and people will vote with dollars as they always have done.

It's a brave new world! Find a way to embrace it! For some that may mean getting a real job. :) jk about the real job part, btw...
Click to expand...

+1 I think its becoming a more common attitude that art should exist for the sake of being art and that it should belong to the community. Thats a whole huge long discussion too but again it'll wait for a later time.
 
#18
Dave Muscato said:
Sonic Napalm, case NOT closed - he was talking about the idea of no taxation without representation, not copyright law! :rollno:

In fact, copyright law was one of the first issues addressed in the first drafts of the United States Codes. I can't remember where I read this, but copyrights, even back then, were important enough to merit serious consideration for the start of a new country. I believe it was Dave Kusek's book, "The Future of Music," that talks about this - I'm out of town right now and don't have the book with me, but I'll get back to you.
Click to expand...

Actually, copyright was addressed in the Constitution itself. Article I, Section 8 provides that, "The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries ...."
 
#19
Yup - the right to Intellectual property is key to our modern society and I see the idea that all that work be give away free is eroding western culture.

So now - why bother to work hard for your degree(s), come up with original areas of research - just copy stuff off the net..:hmm:

Why work hard on your craft as a musician if there is no money to be made doing this - when free music made on PCs in bedrooms swamps the net?

I think the evidence is there - so the 60s,70s and 80s saw loads of innovative music and great bands - now, you see those same bands re-forming everywhere to cover the dearth of new talent now! :hmm:
 
#20
All things change. And that's the truth. Luckily the human spirit and mind are able to adapt to this and make the changes work.

I believe it was in 1904 that John Phillip Sousa appeared before a Congression committee in hopes of outlawing the growth of the recording industry. His vision was that it would put professional musicians out of work. And if you count the piano player in the corner of a lot of resturants and stores a hundred years ago.... some of them lost their jobs to muzak.

45rpm records were supposed to be the death of LP's... and I suppose that did have an impact, but the history of R+R was altered with small unbreakable portable recordings.

MIDI, synthesizers, and computers were seen as the death of live music... but truthfully, multi-track recorders probably did away with more studio gigs than electronics.

Its true that file sharing and things of that ilk in the new technology have had some incredible impact on the music industry. I think that what makes this seem worse is that the speed these changes are coming about is new. And I totally agree with the poster that said "technology has out paced our ethics"... or at least the understanding and application of our ethics to a new challenge.

From my point of view I see that the following is true:

1.) People love music... they always have and will. People need to have music in their lives and they WILL have it no matter what.

2.) Humans will invent things and the stuff they invent will change their lives. This will not cease. There is no real sense in trying to stop the growth of knowledge and its applications. Technology will increase. Complaining about new technology is a waste of time, there are better things to do.

3.) When a new technology impacts a field the people involved get divided into different camps; those that do not want the changes and try their best to hold on to life as it was (see #2) and those people who accept the change, have a vision of what it means in the future and take bold steps to be a part of the future.

As photographer Dave, you know what impact the invention of the camera had on the field of painting... especially in France. If you don't, check out the essays by Charles Baudlier in 1859 where he claimed that the camera was going to ruin the entire field of ART. (interestly he makes mention of the spread of pornography in the streets of France in the mid 1840's.... a few short years after the invention of the camera in 1839). What actually happened with photography was the the camera freed the painter from his task of 'life-like' pictures and allowed the growth of abstract art. Piccaso, Cubism, and all that followed might not have happened without the camera.

As painful as it is to see gigs dry up and respected musicians take other work.... the field is changing, and rapidly. But music will not die, its mode of production, distribution and perhaps overall sound will change, but it will not die.

The question is not what will we do about it... but what will we do with it?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back