If you're audience is 99% male (or musician) you are limited in your opportunities for any kind of mainstream support / success.
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.
This band is TERRIBLE. They sound exactly like 10,000 other TERRIBLE bands. How is that guy a "singer?" How many bands can this genre support, anyway? It's not exactly diverse.
Here's another song:
And another:
I can't tell any difference at all between these songs. The "singer" uses the same note almost the entire time.
I've been working day jobs since the seventies. Why should these guys get paid anything more than what they're making? Shouldn't they at least try to play music that has an audience? How is this even "metal?" I don't recall metal sounding like this.
LOL! I now understand why they made no money...*** is that garbage?
If you're audience is 99% male (or musician) you are limited in your opportunities for any kind of mainstream support / success.
The Ozark Mtn Daredevils had a top ten hit around 1969 in "If You Wanna Get to Heaven." In 1970 they had a number one hit with "Jackie Blue." In an interview the singer said that "Heaven" made them about $250K to split. "Jackie" made them about $50K to split.
That would be $350K in 2015 dollars, according to a nifty inflation calculator I found. For "If you Wanna Get To Heaven" it would be $1.7 million."Jackie Blue" actually dropped in '74. I point this out not to be a d-head, but because I remember it getting beaucoup airplay, and I'm talking NYC stations. Damn if $50K net for that hit doesn't tell you that the music biz is no place for musicians.
Look....a LOT of musicians are in multiple bands these days just to make ends meet and that includes VERY high selling bands and bands that have had significant record sales throughout the years. It is EXTREMELY difficult to make good money even for top tier artists in today's industry and for new and up and coming bands it is designed so that not only will they not make any money but they will incur a ton of debt.
It's a pretty simple case of market saturation. Tons of metal in various sub genres exists. Along with all the new bands cropping up, look at all the "vintage" bands that haven't called it quits. I'm going to see Lamb of God, who have been in the game a while, and Anthrax is opening. If you'd have asked me in 1990 if I thought Anthrax would be making albums and touring in 2015, I'd have giggled.
The supply issue almost makes the quality of the music a non issue. There aren't enough fans of the genre with enough disposable income to support the bands trying to make a living at this.
I don't understand how a touring band on a label could make THAT little. Granted, I realize they're not going to be raking in millions, but $17K a year? You have to figure they would get at least $800-$1000 per show. If you're touring that's gotta be at least 100 shows per year. That's just sounds like horrendous management to me. Am I wrong to think this?
Yes, it's either metal or Justin beaver. No other choicesDoes this mean that Metal is dying of a slow death? Are we going to be stuck with Justin Bieber going forward?
I think a large part of the problem is that people who are good at being responsible, minimizing costs and organizing things are also the kind of people who avoid ending up in touring bands. We (I include myself in this, having once paid a drummer the equivalent of $16 to record drums for an album that I later made a few hundred dollars from) put our bean-counting skills to use in areas where there are more beans to count...They can my minimize that by taking production on themselves. Lean touring. Control merch. Crowd funding. Stop taking on partners that give them loans. As much as the old way is tougher, the new opps are there.
Yeah, the singer's statement is not clear about whether the $17K is per member or for the whole band, and also whether it's per year or for their whole career. But $17K per member sounds both realistic and crappy.I think the article may have gotten it mixed up and band members were making $17k each, not altogether.
Because it's 2015 and they are playing death metal.I don't understand how a touring band on a label could make THAT little.
Does this mean that Metal is dying of a slow death? Are we going to be stuck with Justin Bieber going forward?