Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-03-2010, 02:23 AM   #41
DanXIV
Human being with feelings
 
DanXIV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
hmm... by that point its enternainment, dancing, lights, smoke, mirrors, fashion, brand and trends making the money, not just "musician"; big difference IHMO of course. If she had to stand on the music alone, it wouldn't be there. I don't disagree about mediocre but by the Lady Gaga point its just selling and corporate. Now where did I put my meat dress?

Karbo
And let's not forget sex. It's a mix of personality cult and sex appeal. The next Lady will have to undress completely to get to the same level.
__________________
DanXIV
DanXIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 03:19 AM   #42
charmander
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post

I agree the music industry is in a mess at the moment however there is and always will be a place in society for great music/musicians even if that reverts to artistic patronage.


MC
It might be nice to see whats left after a complete music industry collapse. The people who remain productive are probably the only people I would want to give my money to anyways.
charmander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 07:22 AM   #43
Gizzmo0815
Human being with feelings
 
Gizzmo0815's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 509
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
In my "peanut gallery" view the demise of music sales is due mostly to one thing ... the Internet allowing people to choose the songs they buy instead of buying entire albums.

Having said that, if an artist makes a good album you should most definitely buy it, the entire thing. But I had (even back in the 70's) albums from artists with hit songs where 90% of the album was junk but I bought it because maybe the single I liked wasn't a cassette single. Even then in those cases people would copy a hit from someone else rather than pay for songs they didn't like. That was the model. Make a hit and sell everything else with it on the album. That model is DEAD.

So the days (in many cases) where you'd buy an Anita Baker album and the entire thing from song 1 to the end was really great, are (imo) in many cases more rare than they were... so many people go on iTunes and buy the songs they like for $0.99, and only the songs they like.

Illegal sharing (imo) is only one of the causes of people not spending as much money on music. People always copied music but granted, it's much easier now, although the net doesn't generally provide high quality copies of music so many will pay anyway for the real thing. I'll submit that a song recorded from an album in 1975 to a Chrome cassette tape is higher quality than the typical 128k net mp3. Lots of people were doing that back then too... buy some cassettes, visit a friend, smoke some doobies and copy their record collection, only the songs you like, to a 90 minute cassette. Not new.

As soon as CD burners hit the consumer market people were copying CD's left and right instead of buying their own... doing similar, only burning the songs they liked, not entire albums. The only really "new" thing is the ability to buy any one song on the planet and play it anywhere, alongside anything else, very easily.

The major cause of the income stream being diminished - in my view - is the relative lack of quality "novels"... e.g. entire albums produced from start to finish with the intent to tell good stories across the entire album.

Now you get 12-14 songs on a album and 8-9 or them (in some cases) are just fillers. Imagine you went to buy a $10 shirt and was told that you could only get that shirt in a package with 9 other shirts that you'd probably never wear, and didn't particularly like, for $100.

I'm pretty sure some producers and songwriters (and some artists) who saw a good bit of income from relative "filler" songs that never really made the charts or garnered any real interest at all are hurting more now because many fewer people are buying the albums that contained those songs that generated their particular "points"... for songwriting credit or whatever the case.

The days of a relatively unknown artist making one great song, and getting paid for it and the 8 other mediocre songs on the album or CD, because people have no choice, is generally dead. So I'd say, stop whining about file-sharing and write better songs.
Lawrence I wish I could clap you on the back and buy you a beer. You've hit on an extremely important point. A point that's linked to the OP's original claim. The WORTH of a musical recording is devalued due to several reasons. Think about how simple it is to copy an MP3:

Ctrl+C...Ctrl+V and instantly you've made a perfect copy of an entire song, album or even an entire artists discography.

Norbury Brook doesn't LIKE the fact that this is the case, but it IS the case. I suspect that he values the albums he purchased more for their nostalgaic value than anything else. I suspect that if the cost went down he wouldn't offer to pay more "because he felt it was worth it".

The only issue I have with your comment, Lawrence, is with regards to the audio quality point. This, simply isn't the case anymore. My entire MP3 collection is 320kbps which, for purposes of leisurely listening on my MP3 player in my car is better than I (and I would submit MOST people) would require. The stuff I really love and want in high quality I keep in FLAC, or even WAV format...but again, I can only hear the difference if I'm specifically listening for it on a high quality system. In my car, driving to work...it's simply not important that I have 44.1/24bit recordings coming through my stereo. And with my three 1 TB hard drives, having copied my entire CD collection...I've filled about 10% of my available space. Oh yeah...the three drives cost me a total of $300...my CD collection? It cost me in the couple of thousands.

I agree...the album is dead...the value of a digitized recording of music is near nothing, and I don't see any reason why that would change in the near future.

Musicians might actually have to become talented in a live environment again. Might actually have to become performers again...or at least rely on those people that can make them "interesting to watch" (ever seen a Lady Gaga concert? It's not so much a musical enterprise as an excersice in theatatric spectacle).
Gizzmo0815 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 12:26 PM   #44
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 22,754
Default

Having been in and out of the music bisness for pretty much all of my adult life - in fact I played my first paid gig at the ge of ten - I for one am very glad to see the reversals in the biz currently.
As has already been eloquently stated, the concept of getting paid over and over for the same performance is a relatively new one.
It is also something engendered and supported by the money men in the "biz" - the actual business end of things.
I have always maintained that you need the biggest most rapacious shark of an agent or manager if you want to succeed because whilst they are busy making as much money as possible off your efforts, you will likely receive more for your percentage, no matter how tiny, than you would with an ethical agent or manager (if there is such a thing) Feel free to insert your preferred target group in here - recor companies, Simon Cowell, etc.

The fact is that it has always been the business that has made the most money, so the hell with them.

Roll on the revolution.

I would rasther rely solely on my own efforts to monetise my creativity and at least keep 100% of what I make (less taxes)
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 05:37 PM   #45
Hindu Stan
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 193
Default

pretty fascinating thread......thanks OP for engendering this discussion.
If one agrees with the old supply and demand argument could we not imagine that if we all benefit from, say, a political action, for example, and that could be monetized, then we would have to pay for right to vote to all those that made it possible?
Hindu Stan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 06:21 PM   #46
PAPT
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,082
Default

It has always been extremely foolish to try to earn a living in music.

Theft is the bottom line now for why no one can make any money at it.

But unless a way can be devised to stop the theft, that wouldn't end up being an even larger problem, then theft is an issue that has to be treated as the new business model.

If the theft issue can't be solved then there will soon be no way to earn money except by playing live.

But, if there is a constant stream of bands willing to play for free, then it will become impossible to earn money playing live.

There is basically too much product.

Anyone who is willing to go around the Country playing live for a living is insane and deserves as much or little as they make.
What a terrible way to live.

I've been saying this for a few years, but I think the future is with amateurs who make the decision to release their work for free.

Then, internet sites that select from the available work to create their own personal style, or various styles of music shows.
These sites will work as a sort of filter to help people find music that they like.

Music made by amateurs also has the added benefit that they can make the music that they want to make without having to pander to public taste or work in accepted genres.
The amateur is the real artist. Professionals have far too much temptation to pander to public taste.

I don't see music as a full time profession.
Any competent musician can turn out work in their spare time.

Even some of the recognized talents in the Classical world worked part time, composing in the summer (possibly because they taught as their primaey source of income) or in their other spare time.

Many famous composers sought out jobs in academia in order to pay their bills.
Some did concert tours, but most hated doing that.

The truth of the matter is that the general public doesn't rate music that highly.
They care about celebrity far more.

Good luck trying to earn a living in a profession that historically never was any good at providing a living for people.

You really are trying to win the lottery.

A better lottery is the one where you just spend $1 on a ticket and don't have to do anything else.

Last edited by PAPT; 11-03-2010 at 06:27 PM.
PAPT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 03:37 AM   #47
norbury brook
Human being with feelings
 
norbury brook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,378
Default

THere's money around in the music business. successful people still sell downloads/CD's in large quantities (not as many as 20 years ago).

live concerts,just do the maths of $100 per ticket in a 10 000 seater arena plus merchandise :-)

I've made a good living form music all my life,my partner also is a singer songwriter and runs her own small independent label, it's a family run business that releases mainly her own albums.So our household is run entirely from music

I have seen things change over the last 25 years for sure, I agree record companies had it their own way for a long time with the re release of their back catalogues on CD when it emerged as the new format, meaning no investment was necessary.I do disagree though that just because theft is the way it is we just accept it.I mean if you couldn't walk the streets at night because you got mugged everytime you went out you'd do something about it.

My valuing music, has nothing to do with nostalgia at all, and I'm happy to have my music as FALC/lossles AAC or whatever for ease of storing so long as it's the highest quality.I'm a subscription member of the B&W society of sound because they deliver their music in 24 bit FLAC,and support new artist.I also always make a point of buying a CD or two from independent CD retailers in towns I visit if I'm touring to support them too as a lot of them have died out.

I refer to a point I made earlier, if you guys don't value your selves how do you expect other to do so? It has to come from you first, you will manifest what you think. If you think you can't earn money from music, that's what you'll manifest, if you treat it like a worthless, throw away commodity then that's exactly what it will become.



MC
__________________
https://www.marcuscliffe.com/
norbury brook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 03:52 AM   #48
Runaway
Human being with feelings
 
Runaway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post
THere's money around in the music business. ...live concerts,just do the maths of $100 per ticket in a 10 000 seater arena plus merchandise :-)
You should give the arena a call and ask how much it costs to hire the arena, their security staff, etal

You can bets its more than $20 a ticket, then there is at least $10 off the top to the agent and $20 a ticket for the manager plus $$ for the crew, rig, promotion, etc, etc and thats all off the top before a single ticket is sold.

I dont know how it is over there but there aren't too many acts filling 10,000 seat arenas each night down here.

And yes you are right there is money to be made - just not necessarily by the musicians - LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post
I've made a good living form music all my life,my partner also is a singer songwriter and runs her own small independent label, it's a family run business that releases mainly her own albums.So our household is run entirely from music
Well done - I too cannot complain about the money I have made from the industry (including tax concessions, depreciation, gst refunds, etc)

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post
I refer to a point I made earlier, if you guys don't value your selves how do you expect other to do so? It has to come from you first, you will manifest what you think. If you think you can't earn money from music, that's what you'll manifest, if you treat it like a worthless, throw away commodity then that's exactly what it will become.
All too true - if you place no value on your own efforts then why should anyone else.

Even in the studio if we get a 'charity' case we still invoice full rate but then apply a discount. This way the client can see what the true value is even if we choose to discount our services this time.
__________________
AATranslator
Runaway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 06:34 AM   #49
pc999
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 354
Default

I didn't read the post (but I will) but I want to say that musicians and sound designers (and other media arts) need to be paid, or they will stop making what they can do.


You just cant play Paganini unless that is your life, (not after you work 8 hour+ a day plus all you need to do in a normal day).

If you want a complex mix with new sounds, it will take both money and time.

Many times a good, even if simple, song takes a lot of time to conclude (even when the main idea is quite fast to get), let alone practice and record.

Musicians need to make money or they will not be pro musicians and their work will show that.

Now from here that money came is a different question, many time the labels got most of the money anyway getting quite rich and only some artist got anything near the money from selling CDs.

I think the future will come almost exclusively from performances and requested jobs

Anyway you would probably be amazed by how many guys can live from "traditional" jobs, specially in a strong economy. But because most people think that those traditional jobs dont evolve they also dont try to learn them, there is quite a few that have more work than they can handle.

If we (in the west) didn't get everything (be it hammers or iPad from slave work from china and the like we would be in great shape, but our governments dont mind slave work as long as big company keep doing profits.
________
WIKI VAPORIZER

Last edited by pc999; 08-22-2011 at 04:52 PM.
pc999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 07:22 AM   #50
Gizzmo0815
Human being with feelings
 
Gizzmo0815's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 509
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post
THere's money around in the music business. successful people still sell downloads/CD's in large quantities (not as many as 20 years ago).

live concerts,just do the maths of $100 per ticket in a 10 000 seater arena plus merchandise :-)
And then subtract all of the other fees that go to renting the venue, paying the media companies, producers, labels and you'll see how much of that ticket price goes to the artist...

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post
I've made a good living form music all my life,my partner also is a singer songwriter and runs her own small independent label, it's a family run business that releases mainly her own albums.So our household is run entirely from music
Exactly! Your partner's business plan is likely based on some fairly loyal fans. There's nothing wrong with that, it's awesome. Artists will just need to get comfortable with the fact that not everyone will pay for their recordings. The loyal fans who feel the recording is worth it (somewhat like a donation to a good cause) will pay, and the same fans will buy tickets (or pay cover charges) to see their live performances. You call it theft...I call it a clear statement on the part of consumers about what is and is not worth their money (and who they want the money to go to!!!!!). Performance is worth money...bits and bytes...not so much.

No matter how much you don't want to admit it, computer and communications technology DOES change the worth of things. By taking the medium and changing it's form you've drastically decreased the costs and labor of production. This terrifies the non-artists in the industry because they're no longer in the loop. The internet provides a direct link between fans and artist (additionally between artist and engineer!)...there's no NEED for the industry anymore. The biggest change will be on the part of the artists, by giving up the industry (and it's bank-like funding practices) the artists will need to rely on themselves (and perhaps a few other trusted folks) for funding and marketing. This will likely mean smaller venues, and more creative ways of building a fan base, possibly with more local support, and smaller revenue, but the revenue will be theirs and won't disappear into the pockets of a nameless giant.

I agree, there is definitely still money to be made, I don't think anyone is saying there isn't. The argument is that the way in which that money is made (and who will keep it!) will change drastically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post
I refer to a point I made earlier, if you guys don't value your selves how do you expect other to do so? It has to come from you first, you will manifest what you think. If you think you can't earn money from music, that's what you'll manifest, if you treat it like a worthless, throw away commodity then that's exactly what it will become.
This is only if you define value in terms of monetary worth. There are, however, other defenitions of value. And as I stated above, that value will be determined in different ways...hopefully primarily by the fans, which will put the responsibility for good art (or at least what people percieve as good art) squarely on the artist's shoulders.
Gizzmo0815 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 07:29 AM   #51
Gizzmo0815
Human being with feelings
 
Gizzmo0815's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 509
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pc999 View Post
Musicians need to make money or they will not be pro musicians and their work will show that.
Bull...shit...

Going into ANY artistic profession and EXPECTING to make money is not art for the sake of art.

Going into an artistic profession with the goal of 1) being true to yourself and 2) being thankful that anyone would give you money in order to allow you to continue is much more realistic. Unfortunately the "industry" has destroyed those values.

A good musician is a good musician whether they're getting paid or not.

As for your comments about how the money will flow? My suspicions are outlined in my last post.
Gizzmo0815 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 09:15 AM   #52
xpander
Human being with feelings
 
xpander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Terra incognita
Posts: 7,670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizzmo0815 View Post
Going into ANY artistic profession and EXPECTING to make money is not art for the sake of art.
Art in itself has very little to do with being a professional. Unless artists have finally found the way to live and work for free, same earthly rules apply, especially so if you are making it into profession...otherwise it's not it.

IF you can ever make art for a living might be questionable, but if you are going to make it your profession, you HAVE to expect compensation.
xpander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 09:27 AM   #53
semiquaver
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,923
Default

man, check out the poetry business these days....
semiquaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 10:00 AM   #54
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 11,817
Default

There is plenty of business going around. The only part of the business that's risen considerably to be closer to the fans is the bedroom studio part. They now have better equipment, better access to distribution, and even better marketing.

And whether some folks think people care or not, quality requires a professional level of skill and dedication. It may be easier to get the first 80% of the record done, with less money and less knowledge, but from thereon in it gets very hard. It's rare for hobbyists to rise to that level, so I'm not worried about the business so much. Sound engineering is still a craft and an art, as is playing your instrument, as is writing music and lyrics, as is arranging a song, as is editing, as is mixing, as is mastering a recording.

With enough time, some people may not need to be savvy craftsmen to achieve the same results, but nobody's ever going to pay them for that. Would you ?
__________________
Using Latch Preview (Video) - Faderport 16 setup for CSI 1.1 , CSI 3.10
Website
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 01:07 PM   #55
Paradiddle
Human being with feelings
 
Paradiddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: I am the elephant
Posts: 88
Default

This is the best "Recorded Music Business is Dead" thread I have ever seen.

Good historical perspective.
Paradiddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 05:46 PM   #56
norbury brook
Human being with feelings
 
norbury brook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizzmo0815 View Post
And then subtract all of the other fees that go to renting the venue, paying the media companies, producers, labels and you'll see how much of that ticket price goes to the artist...

well here's a real world example, I was working for a very well know artist a few years ago and we(the Band) were all earning $8000 per week plus expenses,private jet and hotels etc from live shows around the world, the main artist was probably earning a LOT more than us paid side men, so it does come to the artist.I was lucky in that the artist i was working for was generous and paid his musicians well.

MC
__________________
https://www.marcuscliffe.com/
norbury brook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2010, 12:31 AM   #57
strunkdts
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,565
Default

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...05/3057944.htm
strunkdts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2010, 01:04 AM   #58
Runaway
Human being with feelings
 
Runaway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizzmo0815 View Post
the artists will need to rely on themselves (and perhaps a few other trusted folks) for funding and marketing
Now you have hit the nail on the head.

This is why most small business fail and this is why there are no talent carpenters (or musicians) getting heaps of work and good carpenters, bricklayers etc are out of business.

It actually has very little to do with how good you are at your craft you have to be good at business, snake oil, etc
__________________
AATranslator
Runaway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2010, 06:22 AM   #59
Gizzmo0815
Human being with feelings
 
Gizzmo0815's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 509
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradiddle View Post
This is the best "Recorded Music Business is Dead" thread I have ever seen.

Good historical perspective.
I don't think that "recorded music business is dead" though. I just think that the means and methods are changing form. It really has been a very tyrannical system so far. I'm not surprised that beast isn't simply rolling over and dying...there was (is) so much money to be made by people that never even touched the guitar strings, tickled the ivories or sang a note, it's staggering.

That doesn't excuse the fact that people that download music illegally are absolutely still breaking the law. There's no question about it. I just don't think that "big music" can stop it at this point because the music industry giants can't dictate what people do and don't do with their bits and bytes. It's got to be extremely difficult for a given industry rep to prove conclusively that illegal distrubution has, in fact, occured. I'm also willing to bet that the amount of money they're spending finding and prosecuting people is a much larger sum than the amount they gain in successful lawsuits. Even with those massive lawsuits that have come and gone (as Strunkdts showed in his article) illegal downloading hasn't even slowed down...if anything it's gotten more prevalent. Deterrence may be a valid cold war tactic, but in business and money...it ain't workin'. And while I would love to believe that morality in and of itself would be enough of a reason, we all know that's not the case.

That's why I say artists will need to take a serious look at why they do what they do, and they'll need to take a serious look at how they plan on making money. As was mentioned...if an artist can't have at least a small amount of business accumen, they'll either just get taken advantage of, or be left on the sidelines. No one at this point knows the answer yet, but there are a few shining examples of how artists can work their magic and still make money. Norbury Brook's partner is one. Radiohead's "In Rainbows" "pay what you think it's worth" scheme was another (a bit skewed I know, they were already famous, it was a foregone conclusion they'd make money). They didn't make nearly as much as their other albums with their downloads, but all the money they did make went directly to them. If an artist can't be satisfied with that...maybe they just need to rethink why they're making music.
Gizzmo0815 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2010, 07:44 AM   #60
stupeT
Human being with feelings
 
stupeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: frankonia
Posts: 1,996
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Analogy View Post
One last note, a century of royalties from selling records and radio play and Disney buying Senators in order to get copyright terms extended has created a culture where artists feel entitled to get paid for the rest of their lives for creating something once. When anyone in any other profession walks into work and does their job, they get paid for the time they spent doing their job. Get over it.
Does that also mean:

When I founded my company once, then after a while I am not allowed to take the profit from it? Whom have I to give it to? The society?
__________________
------------------------------------------
Don't read this sentence to it's end, please.
stupeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2010, 08:32 AM   #61
jxdlab
Human being with feelings
 
jxdlab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by strunkdts View Post
I'm guessing this is just a scare tactic for future illegal downloaders bc
there is no way a mother of four will pay back 1.5million dollars. Even if they settled for half of that and garnished all of her wages they would never get that money back.
__________________
miMusic: http://getmusic.jxdlab.com

Need music for indie projects?(hiphop/alternative jazz classical fusion):www.jxdlab.com
jxdlab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2010, 10:42 AM   #62
Gizzmo0815
Human being with feelings
 
Gizzmo0815's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 509
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stupeT View Post
Does that also mean:

When I founded my company once, then after a while I am not allowed to take the profit from it? Whom have I to give it to? The society?
This is not a great analogy.
Gizzmo0815 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2010, 03:15 PM   #63
Runaway
Human being with feelings
 
Runaway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stupeT View Post
Does that also mean:

When I founded my company once, then after a while I am not allowed to take the profit from it? Whom have I to give it to? The society?
I'll send you my details ;-)
__________________
AATranslator
Runaway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2010, 10:21 PM   #64
PAPT
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,082
Default

The idea that a person has to be a full time pro in order to develop their skills and make good music does not seem well thought out.

Most, maybe all, musicians develop their skills to a level that people might be willing to pay to hear their works all before anyone is willing to pay them.
They usually have a job or are in school while they develop their skills.

Also, most bands develop their skills as a band before they get paid for being a good band.
Again, this is usually done while they have jobs or are in school.

Some develop further after becoming pro and some just coast on auto pilot.

The idea that a musician needs to be skilled at an instrument or as a composer is also belied by turning on the radio.
There is so much mediocrity there that it would almost seem that the highly talented need not apply because no one is really interested in talent.

Last edited by PAPT; 11-05-2010 at 10:27 PM.
PAPT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2010, 10:34 PM   #65
Runaway
Human being with feelings
 
Runaway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,510
Default

I think where everyone is getting confused is the difference between "music", "musicianship" and the "music industry" or "music business".

These concepts should never be mixed up nor should the words be used in the same sentence - unless of course the sentence is "musicianship has nothing to do with the music business" - that would be the exception ;-)

Folks, remember the thread is "on the state of the music business".

The meaning as I see it is to do with the accepted meaning of the word 'business' as opposed to "giving someone the business".

And given that business, money & (that dreaded word) profit (and loss) all go hand in hand we really should be moving the 'talent' component to another thread to lessen the confusion ;-)
__________________
AATranslator
Runaway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 02:01 AM   #66
jdutaillis
Human being with feelings
 
jdutaillis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runaway View Post
I think where everyone is getting confused is the difference between "music", "musicianship" and the "music industry" or "music business".

These concepts should never be mixed up nor should the words be used in the same sentence - unless of course the sentence is "musicianship has nothing to do with the music business" - that would be the exception ;-)

Folks, remember the thread is "on the state of the music business".

The meaning as I see it is to do with the accepted meaning of the word 'business' as opposed to "giving someone the business".

And given that business, money & (that dreaded word) profit (and loss) all go hand in hand we really should be moving the 'talent' component to another thread to lessen the confusion ;-)
Very well said.
__________________
Sound Recordist | Sound Designer |Sound Mixer
REAPER | Prism Sound Orpheus | Genelec 8020a + 7050B
Check out my website HERE
jdutaillis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 03:06 AM   #67
PAPT
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,082
Default

Except that people have said that musicians being paid was important if we wanted quality music and I am refuting that.

I also made an earlier post stating that music would become mostly the provence of amateurs willing to give their works away, especially if the problems of theft can't be solved.

It's all part and parcel of the music business discussion.
The business of music may soon not be business at all.
That may be a good thing.
PAPT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 06:42 AM   #68
Runaway
Human being with feelings
 
Runaway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PAPT View Post
Except that people have said that musicians being paid was important if we wanted quality music and I am refuting that.

I also made an earlier post stating that music would become mostly the provence of amateurs willing to give their works away, especially if the problems of theft can't be solved.

It's all part and parcel of the music business discussion.
The business of music may soon not be business at all.
That may be a good thing.
I agree 100% with you

No matter if you are a carpenter or a musician being paid does not guarrantee 'quality'. But if you do any sort of work there should be compensation.

But I have seen over the last 10 years a lot of guys who used to have backyard bands back in the day who are now retired from their jobs and have decided they want to get back into it - so they form a band of similar guys who are probably pulling a pension and dont need the money so they work for almost nothing. It doesn't matter if they are crap.

So now the price 'professional' musicians can command is dwindling and so are the venues. Essentially it already is 'provence of amateurs willing to give their works away'.

BTW If you want to be a carpenter in this country you have to have studied & passed exams as well as undertaken an approved apprenticeship.

Whereas in this country if you want to be a professional musician you :-
a. dont need qualifications
b. dont even have to know how to play your instrument/sing well
c. dont want to get a real job
d. dont want to get out of bed before noon
e. only want to work 2.5 hours a day 2 or 3 times a week (after noon).

So maybe they are now getting paid what they are worth? ;-)
__________________
AATranslator
Runaway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 06:48 AM   #69
norbury brook
Human being with feelings
 
norbury brook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runaway View Post
I agree 100% with you

No matter if you are a carpenter or a musician being paid does not guarrantee 'quality'. But if you do any sort of work there should be compensation.

But I have seen over the last 10 years a lot of guys who used to have backyard bands back in the day who are now retired from their jobs and have decided they want to get back into it - so they form a band of similar guys who are probably pulling a pension and dont need the money so they work for almost nothing. It doesn't matter if they are crap.

So now the price 'professional' musicians can command is dwindling and so are the venues. Essentially it already is 'provence of amateurs willing to give their works away'.

BTW If you want to be a carpenter in this country you have to have studied & passed exams as well as undertaken an approved apprenticeship.

Whereas in this country if you want to be a professional musician you :-
a. dont need qualifications
b. dont even have to know how to play your instrument/sing well
c. dont want to get a real job
d. dont want to get out of bed before noon
e. only want to work 2.5 hours a day 2 or 3 times a week (after noon).

So maybe they are now getting paid what they are worth? ;-)

LOL very true though

in my case however,

a; Have a degree in music,and royal school of music grade exams, and 30 years experience
b; Do know how to play my instrument well
c; do consider it a proper job
d: start my studio days a t 10 .am, or often at an airport for the first flight into europe having been up since 5 a.m
c; quite often work 7 days a week 12 hours a day.


MC
__________________
https://www.marcuscliffe.com/
norbury brook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 06:55 AM   #70
Runaway
Human being with feelings
 
Runaway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post
LOL very true though

in my case however,

a; Have a degree in music,and royal school of music grade exams, and 30 years experience
b; Do know how to play my instrument well
c; do consider it a proper job
d: start my studio days a t 10 .am, or often at an airport for the first flight into europe having been up since 5 a.m
c; quite often work 7 days a week 12 hours a day.

MC
I thought you said you were a professional musician?? LOL

Obviously there are those that qualify as a professional musician by a 'normal' profession's standards and clearly you are one of them.

No disrespect but intersting to see if you rocked up to the local pub to apply for a solo gig if they even looked at those qualifications (mind you it probably no longer pays well) ;-)
__________________
AATranslator
Runaway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 06:58 AM   #71
norbury brook
Human being with feelings
 
norbury brook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,378
Default

to be honest, as long as you can do the gig, be that as a producer/engineer or musician,that's all that counts. i know plenty of 'qualified' people I wouldn't touch with a barge pole.In my case my CV just gets me through the door, I still have to deliver the goods.

it's important that people who are paying you know you can deliver the goods, having a good CV/resume is a sort of guarantee of that, they know if they hire me as a producer I'll get the job done to a high standard and within budget and time conditions.Same as a musician,people have to know you'll be at the gig on time, not drunk, not have a panic attack when you see 100 000 people in the audience,or on a stressful live TV show, and deliver the goods night after night.


MC
__________________
https://www.marcuscliffe.com/

Last edited by norbury brook; 11-06-2010 at 07:04 AM.
norbury brook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 06:59 AM   #72
Runaway
Human being with feelings
 
Runaway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post
to be honest, as long as you can do the gig, be that as a producer/engineer or musician,that's all that counts. i know plenty of 'qualified' people I wouldn't touch with a barge pole.In my case my CV just gets me through the door, I still have to deliver the goods.

MC
And at the end of the day that's the way it should be
__________________
AATranslator
Runaway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 10:06 AM   #73
lxm
Human being with feelings
 
lxm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,638
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post
LOL very true though

in my case however,

a; Have a degree in music,and royal school of music grade exams, and 30 years experience
b; Do know how to play my instrument well
c; do consider it a proper job
d: start my studio days a t 10 .am, or often at an airport for the first flight into europe having been up since 5 a.m
c; quite often work 7 days a week 12 hours a day.


MC
well laaaa dee daaa
lxm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 10:16 AM   #74
Stargard
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 117
Default

Economy 3.0

1.0 = providing for yourself
2.0 = making profit by supplying/controlling demand
3.0 = generating more VALUE for others than PROFIT for yourself


You have to look at some studies about Google and how much they have changed online commerce and how much value they have helped generating.
It's unbelievable.

It's the first concept based around sending people off to other sites, instead of trying to keep them on your own.
Facebook is based around providing you with a service that generates more value for you, than it does for Facebook.

My point is the following. The music industry is stuck in 2.0.
Reaper and software for musicians is definitely 3.0.

Music is a service. Entertainment is a service. It doesn't generate more value for you than it generates profit for the companies producing and distributing it. And that's the whole reason why huge record/production companies are destined to die, while their licensing arms will continue to make profit.

This is why a physics book generates more value for an engineer than it does for the publishing company. This is why Open Source software can be profitable; it does generate way more value for the ones using it, than it does for the ones providing the service so to speak.

An mp3 worth 99c is worth exactly that. 99c.
A sample CD worth $99 can be worth thousands, given its value for some music production company.

Youtube is a write off for Google. It's a service for all the others. It provides you with a service only YOU profit from. Google doesn't.

So every industry up until the internet age which was based around physical products (except education) had a (at best) 1:1 ratio.

A free Facebook account can be worth thousands to your company or friends, etc...

Music is like patents and you pay for the right to reproduce a formula.
Software is like a patent and you pay for the right to use the formula.
Open Source is like a (free) patent and you pay NOTHING to use the formula, which can help you and others to generate more value than is visible in its original form.

"Sharing is caring", as they said in the Radium days. These days, it's "sharing and making it better, for free" what generates ADDITIONAL value.

Communism, in its essence is about generating value by using all the human resources available, thus generating more value for all those involved (and those who will be involved in the future), without asking for anything.

Economy 3.0 is communism. While I hate what is associated with the term, the concepts seem to work.
Look at Google, Youtube, Myspace, Facebook, etc...

"Sharing is caring" is what generates value.
Music should be about sharing too.
Don't download MP3s though, listen to online radio.
Make music and software Open Source. The "masses" will thank you for it.
Indirectly and directly.
Stargard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 05:01 PM   #75
Runaway
Human being with feelings
 
Runaway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stargard View Post
3.0 = generating more VALUE for others than PROFIT for yourself

Communism, in its essence is about generating value by using all the human resources available, thus generating more value for all those involved (and those who will be involved in the future), without asking for anything.

Economy 3.0 is communism. While I hate what is associated with the term, the concepts seem to work.
Look at Google, Youtube, Myspace, Facebook, etc...
I love that whole 'greater good thing' - the movie Hot Fuzz(?) comes to mind ;-).

"more VALUE for others than PROFIT for yourself" - how much did you say the guys that created Facebook & Google were worth?
__________________
AATranslator

Last edited by Runaway; 11-06-2010 at 05:06 PM.
Runaway is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.