Count me in!!!

Maybe I am missing something, but what is the point of this post? Times are tough and music is a business. If you are successful, you will make money. If you are not, you won't.

Thisdoes not offer any advice on how to allow artists to make more money either. Saying people should stop torrenting? Not going to happen unless their is an incentive.

@ Casey: "Saying people should stop torrenting? Not going to happen unless their is an incentive."

it's about consequences. the incentive is not breaking the law. add consequences like with every other crime, and behaviour changes.

it's that simple.

do you support musicians Casey, or do you support the people who exploit them illegally?

But the consequences are not working. Illegal downloading is still very popular and suing people who downloaded from torrents has essentially backfired. People are now downloading from youtube and music search engines by the droves and they are nearly impossible to stop.

Most of my music is listened to through a Rhapsody subscription. Some would say that is not supporting musicians although I disagree. I occasionally buy music through Rhapsody as well along with some CD purchases.

"Support musicians - stop listening to their music!"

strawman argument.

Times are tough, but they don't have to be this tough.

that can't happen only if people are dumb. People are not dumb. Even teens are not dumb and can understand what is all behind such article. They are manipulated and don't think right, which is normal, they have no idea of the value of work and money as they use parents' money in general, with few exception.

>>>>
If you are successful, you will make money.
>>>>

That's exactly the problem.

How can you be successful without making money ?

How can you be succesful when you see your prods torrented and your motivation go away.

You could make money without being succesful. Success is not a condition of making money.
IT has become one, but it is exactly the contrary of what you say: you make money in music because you are famous and have lots of promo for word of mouth, live shows etc..
Music cost a lot to produce, both time and money.

Torrent is for people who want the world rules by major companies, CIA, and dictators.

No Bob Marley, No John Lennon in torrent era.

that can't happen only if people are dumb. People are not dumb. Even teens are not dumb and can understand what is all behind such article. They are manipulated and don't think right, which is normal, they have no idea of the value of work and money as they use parents' money in general, with few exception.

>>>>
If you are successful, you will make money.
>>>>

That's exactly the problem.

How can you be successful without making money ?

How can you be succesful when you see your prods torrented and your motivation go away.

You could make money without being succesful. Success is not a condition of making money.
IT has become one, but it is exactly the contrary of what you say: you make money in music because you are famous and have lots of promo for word of mouth, live shows etc..
Music cost a lot to produce, both time and money.

Torrent is for people who want the world rules by major companies, CIA, and dictators.

No Bob Marley, No John Lennon in torrent era.

Or why not actually:

musicians, steal the salary of those year-long workers. F*ck them, and make them realize, at last, that what they do is useless and worthless. Make those asshole pay or at least, not make any cent, because if they want to make money, they have to work their butt off and be successful. OItherwise, if they are not successful and appear on TV with stupid wigs and apperel, well, they don't deserve to get a penny, it means they didn't work their ass off (or didn't blow the right d*ck)

"One of the fundamental principles of Conscious Living is recognizing that harmony is created by an equal exchange of energy. Someone creates something, someone trades for it or buys it and the cycle continues.

When we choose to break that cycle, either because we convince ourselves that what we are doing doesn’t harm anyone, or only harms those faceless corporations that already have way too much money, we neglect to take into consideration the individuals who actually fuel the engine. Whether it is the artist or the worker, faceless is only what we see if we want to justify our behavior."

posted by Christine Agro

http://blog.beliefnet.com/lifeasaconsciousmom/2012/06/19/teach-your-children-the-importance-of-honesty-value-and-equal-exchange-of-energy-2/

Sam's graphic is part of an ongoing conversation to raise consciousness for the real impact that economic exploitation has on musicians and the creative community.  Our group agrees that there has been a blinding barrage of misinformation from the pseudo radicals who promote the free distribution of others work and behind the scenes dealing by the tech industry to relegate valuable content to "digital road kill". 

Will Buckley, founder, FarePlay

"Award For Not Getting The Point of the Post"

The point of the post is to express an opinion with which you do not agree casey.  

Sam you are getting pathetic now. Everyone deserves to make a living out of doing the thing he loves. Yet it this is for the happy few.  

Wining doesn't help. Better find a more creative solution than this PETm. A waste of time. I won't help a bit.

This is called economy, things change. Sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse. 

There will always be funding for the pursuit of the arts.  There was a 50 year anomaly in recorded music where it was WILDLY profitable.... it's because large corporations set up "copyrights" which ensured they capitolize on a physical product (the vinyl, 8track, tape, CD)... once the product was digitized the control of the market was compromised.

Now we're back to the days BEFORE the anomaly.  A very few will be profitable, some will see pursue music simply for the altruistic duty of being a creator.

There's still money to be made, but its more competitive than ever.  Stop expecting to record a product, distribute it to the world, and sit on your ass and collect a check.

Tour, find placement opportunities, get sponsors and endorsers, BUST YOUR ASS.. but please, for the love of God... STOP CRYING.

The market changed... that's what market's do.  You adapt and survive or you go find a real job, it's really that simple.

I'm all for the ethical treatment of musicians.  Just realize that being treated ethically and being pandered to are different things.  PETm isn't a battle cry I can get behind.

I'm not really sure what is pathetic about asking to be compensated for the work that you do. Sam is not talking about prosecuting people, and there's nothing in his appeal that talks about reviving corporate dominance of physical media. In fact, as many people have noted, the current situation is proving, if anything, even MORE profitable to those multi-nationals, as they funnel huge amounts of ad dollars from ISPs and pocket ALL of it without any money going to artists.

What Sam is pointing out is the fundamental asshole-ish nature of douchebags buying feel-good shit at premium prices on the face-value (rarely verified) that they are somehow helping someone in another country.....and then going and directly ripping off someone they actually admire.

Again, the outcry of "this will never work" and "you'll never convince the masses" misses the point and sounds downright defensive. This is a campaign to reach people on an individual level, to force them to justify stealing from the people they are fans of. And despite all the complaints from freehadists, it's working. 

dude you're misinformed. copyright has existed for 100s of years; classical musicians made money from selling sheet music (which was the composer's exclusive right to sell).

also, what's changed is we now know that "freemium" does NOT build a paying fan base. so, now we inform people of the consequences of not buying music. things like PETm bring that knowledge to the forefront.

as usual: why so reluctant to help musicians get paid for what people are liking enought to illegally d'load?

saying "move on/times have changed" is like saying, when women started being persecuted as witches and being burned at the stake, "that's just how it is now. sigh."

Are you actually trying to say that "as usual: why so reluctant to help musicians get paid for what people are liking enough to legally download?"

If so, I'd like to see you prove displacement of sales. Good luck. Nobody has been able to show that yet. In addition, you show you are naive by saying this - we all know that most of our libraries never get listened to and were downloaded to "sample" or "try" the music. Remember when we used to be able to do that in music stores? 30 seconds doesn't cut it. Ok facts? Here you go: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2386549,00.asp

We listen to about 19% of our libraries. So what you are not getting is that 81% of our libraries are things we would have regretted paying for because we don't listen to it. Why would you then use those tracks as an example of how much musicians are "losing" to illegal downloads? That relationship is false. Its called calculating "displacement of sales." Think about it. Those musicians who make up 81% of the library should be happy we ever spent the time listening to their music. In many cases it leads to exposure, and the better musicians make the jump from that 81% unlistened to that 19% listened all the time. So stop saying that we loved it enough to download it but won't pay... the record labels used to win out when you bought the CD with 2 songs you liked, now you don't have to buy the whole CD. What the hell is wrong with that? nothing! Its better this way for consumers, it takes away the "getting ripped off" feeling I used to have opening at least 80% of the new CD's I used to buy. And this is a free market, determined by consumers. Get it?

Free Market=Payment for goods. It also implies that theft of goods has consequences. Like getting your goddamn hands cut off. Open an econ textbook and read it before you invoke Adam Smith or the invisible hand again, brother.

Besides, there are a million options now to just buy the two damn songs you like and let the rest sit on the shelf. But your defense of just ripping off the entire bunch, and then suggesting that we should be thankful for the "exposure" (to what, a douchebag who stole our shit?!?!) is transparent and worthless.

Not my fault you bought a ton of crap you don't listen to. Or filled hard drives with stolen music you don't have time to listen to. First world problems, you know?

The most pathetic part of the whole thing is listening to the bullshit of people justifying theft...the excuses never end. 

Speaking of pathetic Award.

it's whining not wining. 

I understand there are a lot of issues at hand but until every child can go to bed without being hungry I can't even get worked up about musician's supposed rights in relationship to filesharing especially since most of those torrents would never have translated into actual sales.

I love the above comment.  It needs an award.

MALE HOST: "And now in the category for FAKE ALTRUISM with a HOLIER THAN THAN ATTITUDE  CLYDE SMITH!"

<<<APPLAUSE>>

FEMALE HOST: "Clyde How did you do it?"

CLYDE SMITH: "Well you know I just picked you know starving children cause that's what you see on television and shit".

MALE HOST: "Yes but you are too humble.  It's very clever,  arguing that you can't fix one wrong because their are other wrongs in the world.  I mean taken to it's logical conclusion you could argue that why worry about "hungry children" in kenya when their are dying children in darfur"

<<<Light Laughter from audience>>>>

Female Host: "I love the fact that you are pointing out there are starving children in the world but you aren't actually doing anything about it.  You are wasting your time on tech music blogs excusing unethical behaviour"

Clyde Smith:  " yeah pretty hypocritcal and lame isn't it"

<Laughter from audience then applause>>>

Clyde holds trophy aloft and walks down the steps, where inexplicably he meets a crowd of bikers who beat the crap out of him.

The "advice" I am giving is to open up a conversation with your fans about this topic. Have a frank conversation about your desire to be fairly compensated for your creation.   SHARE THE LINK on your FB page, and watch the discussion begin.

Yeah - sweet concept.

Love this! Anyway i can help.  

Right on, music IS making money on the internet, it’s just that it is not going to the creators, it’s going to unethical middlemen webmasters who get rich off of advertising. Kim Dotcom skimmed $175 million. And it’s the same for other artists - photographers, filmmakers, authors, etc. and even all of you.

Middlemen getting rich? What middlemen (websites) are getting rich in the music industry? Looks to me like the only website or service getting rich is Apple. Every other music service is either broke or barely breaking even.

"A solution is that the same technology that websites like Google and Facebook use to sell your personal information to advertisers could be used to pay basic royalties and residuals to any creator."

-Firstly selling people's private information is wrong and suggesting it should happen says a lot. Secondly, you mean like Pandora is doing for music? How is that working? They are not profitable and artists want MORE money. Artists who think advertising is a massive goldmine that they are entitled to are clueless.

Flickr is an online storage service for pictures. They make money because their product is successful. The idea was to host images for the public to see. Flickr is actually extremely generous. They let you use server storage and bandwidth free of charge. If you don't want to use Flickr because they make the money and you don't, don't upload your photo to them. It's that simple.

Casey asked: What middlemen (websites) are getting rich in the music industry?

Were you Rumpelstiltskining while Kim Dotcom earned $175 million profit on the back of the creative community?

Kim Dotcom has made barely any money from the music industry, which was my question.

Oh? Kim Dotcom earned $175 Million from music, film, games he didn't create or have the right too. Are you saying that's fine? Maybe you are one of those ethical people I was addressing in my original graphic? Have a nice day, Casey. I'm done with your nonsense.

My non-sense?

Firstly my original point was about legally operating middlemen. There are always illegally operating middlemen and pointing out they make money is completely useless. Secondly, this is a discussion about music. Period. Not film. Not games. Not software. Kim Dotcom has made a lot of money, much of which was done in a shady manor. But music has never been a major revenue source. His "Mega" company's primary revenue source was without a doubt from MegaVideo.

Regardless, my original point stands. These legally operating middlemen are not getting rich off music. Spotify is not getting rich. Rhapsody is not getting rich. Pandora is not getting rich.

Spotify is not getting rich off music? You don't read much, do you?

http://wallblog.co.uk/2012/04/26/spotify-founder-daniel-ek-joins-sunday-times-rich-list-worth-190m/

"Spotify’s business is now valued at £1.2 bn and Ek, who lives in London and is an Arsenal supporter, has a stake worth £190m in the company."

Seems to me he *is* getting rich. Maybe you are in the Mitt Romney school of "not very much." But I agree with Sam. You ooze of the nonsense.

Daniel Ek's stake in spotify is worth that much money, if sold. But it is not money. Saying he is getting rich is unfair because he can't spend it. As of right not it is completely out of his reach. Granted he isn't hurting for cash, but almost all of his wealth is in Spotify, not in cash. Not until Spotify goes public will he be worth his value.

Spotify's company value is not important to anyone other than investors. It has not made even a quarter of the company's valuation in revenue and has yet to turn a profit. Profit is not the only factor in a company's valuation and therefore does not mean the company is getting rich. If Spotify is unable to turn a profit in the coming years, as with Pandora, then it doesn't matter what the company is worth.

Award for pretending to know a lot about the internet but not actually knowing anything.

The winner is Casey.

How about this middleman.  ever heard of Google?

96% of googles revenue came from advertising.  Google made 37.9 Billion dollars last year.

http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/29/google-advertising/

Here is a Lady Gaga illegal download page.  When I went to the site the add on the left hand side of the page was for Busch Gardens amusement park.  Placed there by Google.

http://www.emp3world.com/mp3/173242/Lady%20GaGa/Lady%20Gaga%20-%20Bad%20Romance

Is Google's search engine in the music industry? Appears you think it is. In that case, so is my car and the highway it drives on. It can get me to a Wal-Mart to buy a CD.

When I say websites "in" the music industry, one could infer that I mean websites or services that particularly deal with the music industry. Ex. Pandora. Not websites that could maybe relate to music in some way that were not specifically designed to deal with music whatsoever.

Why do you refuse to connect the elements together ?

You look like you think you need to convince yourself that apparences are making the reality. Beware of the day you come to realize you've been living in complete illusion. But people find many ways to continue to live in denial, because it justify what they do and not realize their own mistake.

Casey's delusion seems satisfactorily insular. The real question for Casey is WHO DO YOU WORK FOR? Because he just keeps changing the goal post, to support his confusion.

Google NOT in the music industry - you must have been sleeping this day: https://play.google.com/music/listen --- Google not a middleman in the music industry? That other guy on here points out how deep they are in it, with their ad profits. 

Casey will change the goal post again. In three.... two.... one...

Appears you can't read. I said Google's search engine, not Google.

Look, I think this is much simpler than everyone else is making it out to be. I understand the feelings and anguish and unfairness involved in people not paying for music. But you are ignoring reality. Let me break it down one more time as I did last time Sam Rosenthal posted his feelings on this blog. I am not unsympathetic, I'm simply bored with the whole complaining about music being stolen argument. Why? There's too much music, not enough quality, it costs too much in most cases, and too many people have their hand in the pot taking a profit. More importantly, music is a commodity, and like any other commodity, there is a saturation point for the market. Right now, there are so many ways to buy music. There are so many different licensing agreements that not every paid site gets you the music you want. But more importantly, technology gave everyone the ability to make music and release it. Frankly, none of us consumers are responding well to this lack of curation of music, and the lack of quality overall in the music hitting the market, and the record labels treated us like criminals instead of offering us paid options for years and years. As I learned from DMN,

"In 2011, 90% of New Album Sales Came from 2% of Releases"

So stop thinking you are special and understand that music is not necessarily going to make you a living. It may be a sad and hard fact, but its art. Artists are not all rich, right? When you guys were in school or growing up, did anyone tell you that it was a good call to be a musician because it would make you rich? I hope not. I hope you make music because you love it, and it should bring you some happiness. But stop expecting everyone to personally love you and your vibe and your music and your image and your album... its not gonna happen. Times were easier before. I get it. Now get over it. Its time to TEAR DOWN this entire industry and restart from the ground up. I spent 4 years and $160,000 learning about the record industry and trying to get a job helping to create change in the business. Instead I was met with greedy executives, A&R reps who did no A&R, watching musicians get bilked on their contract deals, and generally understanding that everyone wants a piece of the pie, and in the end the musician always gets more screwed. But there is a solution. Imagine a music world where record labels don't exist, where none of this BS exists. Now imagine this idea - I know you'll call it socialism, but it was the solution based on my senior thesis in college. Imagine if every person in the US paid $20 in taxes each year that went directly to a pool for "music." None of that money would go to profit for a company, it would go to the musicians and maintaining the site. That's twice the cost of spotify. Now think about how you already pay this... its already priced into your drinks at the club, they pay ASCAP/SESAC/BMI fees. Its priced into your ticket at the venue, they pay fees too. You walk around all day listening to music in stores, all over. Those places pay for the music they play. Artists barely see any of that money. Music lives in the air now, it is no longer confined and controllable. Now it is just plain STUPID to try to control it in any way. So instead, lets collect revenue and pay it out via an electronic system that calculates what you get based on your popularity in the market. That could be caluclated by your number of downloads, streams, video plays, etc. It is easy to track this stuff! Now if you doubt, lets do the math. As of march, there were 313,931,275 citizens in the USA. Assuming they all pay taxes of $20 per year, that's a total of $6,278,625,500. 6 billion, one quarter million dollars/year to dole out. What would you think, rather have spotify and itunes or this? Either way the reality is that there are too many people taking a cut and profiting from the artist, and so consumers just don't like the idea of getting ripped off by giving so much to the industry and seeing so little make it to artists. Its a cycle.

I love 95% of this. 

Unfortunately I've seen the socialization/subsidizing of music in european countries and Canada (not in the same way you're proposing) and what happens is an overall mediocrity. 

There has to be a degree of Darwinism in the system. As Seth Godin has pointed out so eloquently, it has to be remarkable. 

Great points though sir, big fan of your work here. 

I just read the first sentence about too much music, fed up of the "stolen" argument etc.

But when a product is not good, you don't buy... you don't steal it (or download it or whatever you call it).

The debate about downloading and musician revenues is not a debate about quality.

If you say that is is related to quality, it is like saying, you can steal/download them.

Weird assumption.

I didn't read further than that .....

a little story that must be told.

Uhh... People for the Ethical Treatment of Musicians (PETm)?

As a musician for over 40 years, here's the reality: In 1977, I made $50-$100 per gig. In 2012 (35 years later), I'm making... $50-$100 per gig. A car in 1977 went for $5000, my apartment rent was $180 a month, a pair of drumsticks was $2. Today, a car is $20,000+, rent is $800+, sticks retail at $15.

Could YOU live on the same money YOU were making 35 years ago? Doubtful, unless you have the government help you out with free cheese, etc.

People love music, people want music in their lives. But what if the music stopped someday? What value would it have then? Not buying CDs, or merch, or concert tickets hits the musician's wallet. With no money, it's impossible to continue creative arts. When they're working a day job to make ends meet, there's no time to make music. Then the music stops.

Musicians deserve the right to make a decent living just like anyone else. But the public devalues music since they don't NEED it to survive. Hmmm... well, maybe you DO...

So, 

I've been a musician (a drummer as well) for 24 years, and a professional for the last ten. 

in 2002, I played for free or cab fare. 

2003-4: $50-100 per gig

2005-6: $150-200

2006-10 $250-350

2011-present $350-1000

This includes DIY artists, Indie bands, Major Labels and everything in between. 

I created value in what I do and people saw that value. I worked hard and networked to get where I am (and played my ass off and ate shit), and plan on continuing to go up. Everyone has the ability to do this, not everyone is willing to do what it takes, others are complacent with where they are.  

The truth is, there are plenty of other drummers in this town that could play circles around me, though I still get hired. 

Opportunity is out there for those who want it, and can see it. 

$.02

Young Gun. You have me baffled. Are you saying it's a GOOD THING that you earned $350 so far in 2012 after 24 years in the business?

Or are you saying you get paid between $350 - $1000 a night. Because if that's the case, you earn more than (and I am guessing here) 75% of the bands on tour, and 99% of the musicians I know.

Count yourself lucky to be in the 1%. And keep treating musicians ethically!

Scroll back up, 

I've been playing drums for 24 years, working (completely, no day job outside of music) professionally for the past 10. I'm 34 years old. I live in NYC. 

I worked on a sliding scale for a while. I've made union wages, I've made a cut of the bar, I've been on retainer. It's about work ethic and hustle, and going where the work is and being determined to master your craft.

You're as good as your last gig. 

Risk vs Reward. 

And, I am by NO MEANS in the 1%. I know drummers who make 10X what I make for both touring and session work. They are the 1%. 

I have a family. Me and the lady live in a railroad apt with our 5 year old. We don't have real savings, but are on our way now. 

That's the truth. Most people don't want to hear the truth, they want to be placated and fed a delusion, they want to be the victim and hang out with other victims.

Misery loves, and will seek out company. 

I demand (and command) a decent wage now because I earned it, and continue to earn it, not because I feel entitled to it. 

"The Award for the most obnoxious screen name goes to ..."

"Young Gun!"

(I don't know anybody who is really in the music business that would go by the name "Young Gun" jes saying)

That's it???

You've had decent comments till now. 

Come on Awards Schmuck..I expected a bit more. 

Weak Sauce. 

I wanted to be sure I heard you right. You know drummers making 10x what you make (ie: $3500 - $10,000 a night)? 

Absolutely 100% Correct. 

I was giving you an idea of the scale for session work as well. There are people who make 3k per track, which can easily top 10k in a day at their level.

There are people I know who are making 10k a week on the road, which works out to just under 1500 a day. 

People like Joey Waronker, Josh Freese, Dennis Chambers, Cindy Blackman, Matt Chamberlin, Shawn Pelton, Steve Gadd, Vinnie Colaiuta, Abe Laboriel Jr...these are just a few names. These are players (sidement, not even band members) worldwide that command these types of wages. 

These are World Class, first call, Creme de La Creme Triple Union Scale players who spent years getting to where they are, and continue to deliver every day. 

If you don't know who these people are, who they play with or the caliber of their work (and what that's worth) you should probably check it out because it will give you a better understanding of what value can mean within music, the industry and this economy. 

There is another entire generation of players coming up below them, who are not yet making that kind of cash, but as they progress (and the old guard get older) will be. 

Hey Drumbob,

The problem isn't consumers, it's not the moral compass of society, it's not technology, or the industry. If you've been playing for 3 decades & you're still making $50-100 per gig, the problem is you. Get off this website & learn some other craft. You need a new career.

jw

JW, how much are you making per gig where you are? I'm in the Mid-Atlantic, and the music biz is depressed down here. Private & corporate gigs pay quite well, but local bar & club work gets horrible pay. Probably because there's always some other band out there willing to do it for free, or for beer, or for food. These musicians are devaluing themselves and other musicians.

lady gaga touring? not so much - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1392686/Lady-Gaga-admits-went-bankrupt-spending-millions-tour-costumes.html

You know who else works really hard at their craft & "deserves" to get paid for it? Those guys who do yo-yo tricks. Some of that shit is awesome. Pinball wizards. I've tried my damndest to get the top score on the KISS arcade game @ Pizza Time, but I'll never top b0b, a truly skilled player deserved of some compensation. Those guys who build those robot machines that fight one another. Star gazers... you don't learn all of those constellations in one night, & those trips out to the pasture don't pay for themselves. Oh, and philosophy majors. They all deserve a salary for thinking about shit.

We've gotta get rid of this notion that everyone deserves money, & draw a line somewhere between truly deserved professional musicians who are actually contributing something to society & "I take my hobby too seriously" or "I just really don't want to work in an accounting office." For christ's sake, comparing to musicians to bloggers is the WORST thing you could do & ONLY serves to feed people's egos. Talk about devaluing music...

I mean, I always wanted to be a baseball star. But luckily there were coaches & scouts to tell me I wasn't good enough, & pretty soon I just ran out of opportunities.

A honduran coffee farmer has no other option. He probably inherited his land, & he's going to farm coffee no matter what he makes. Every American musician is just as capable as any other American of getting a real job that actually contributes to society. The comparison only hurts your cause.

As does the comparison to labor unions. What's stopping you from forming your own labor union? Do it. Go on strike. See who cares. (I'll save you some time... probably no one.)

No one's going to have any compassion for musicians any time in the near future, & these kinds of campaigns just hammer home how self-involved & deluded the average musician actually is. The picture of the musician that everyone logging onto a torrent has is one of a overgrown child who sleeps in, stays up & drinks too much alcohol, avoids any real responsibilities in life, probably doesn't shower or shave often enough, & suffers from a general self-obsession & lacks the self-awareness of professionals in other fields.

***IF YOU WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, MUSICIANS, YOU HAVE SOME REAL PR WORK TO DO.**

That's exactly why copyrights are not based on merits anymore. It was like that in the 19th. A judge could tell you: i don't see anything interesting in this music and it does not deserve copyright.

It will happen to you too. People who are against this is for other reasons.

What you don't realize is that YOU have the choice of deciding what is good for you and not someone else who will tell you what is good for you.

To answer another post about money/sucess (which is not the debate); you can say the following too:  it is only unsucessful looser who download. because they don't have the money to buy and support.

Turn it anyway you want, it can only come from negative elements.

I don't wish you that your (future) employer takes all the money from you. I wish it to you for a short period though , there are bosses like that... they are not necessarily succesful neither :-)

Huge thanks to Digital Music News for the post

great idea!

There can be no doubt that the music industry is in an intense state of flux. "Labels" are dying on the vine, killed by their own "poison pill", digitized music. We are living in a period that is recreating the music industry via the rise of the "Indies", revolutionary media distribution technologies and most of all the simple fact that artists are fed up with business as usual.

There are and will be a few visionaries who will lead the movement and ultimately establish parity.

David Hruska

Support Texas Live Music

www.facebook.com/SupportTexasLiveMusic

http://s3.media.squarespace.com/production/879664/10300043/2010/04/how-much-do-music-artists-really-earn-online.png

Annnnnnd we're back to the oldest, most out of date and useless infographic on the internet. 

Some advice, if you want to try to make it in this new and changing landscape, you have to keep up with the reality of what's happening. 

Preferably daily, there'a lot going on. 

(This is 2 years old, and the data is subjective at best regardless)

Visitor,

The graphic you have 'linked' is to say at the very least, "subjective, at best". The relevance is not the fact it's out of date, the relevance is the fact: today the numbers are far more likely skewed in favor of the media providers. It is an old subject. However, as you have so graciuosly alluded to, watching the industry every day has revealed the momentum is rapidly building and gaining traction at an ever increasing pace. To be sure, music is art. But, make no mistake that it is also a business that provides a tangible product and massive revenue streams. Sitting back and 'yawning' that this isn't news and you've been listening to this for years, is going to leave one sitting in exactly the same spot they are, today. Simply an observation from someone who knows absolutely nothing about the industry.

I do not know how musicians are employed for live gigs in America.My experience in Australia goes like this...we have a band...rehearse...make DVD...knock on the appropriate doors..leave a DVD and price plus contact information.Follow up call a couple of days later. If we get the gig great if not ask the questions...was our music appropriate to the venue etc etc. Move on knock on other doors. It is very rare to have a percentage of the door in Australia.To date after 30 years playing we have always been paid for the gig what we asked. Travelling is limited to approximately 100 mles of home...we all have day jobs from...music teacher...lawn mowing man...carpenter....computer geek...audio engineer  and a dentist. Thats the way we operate...lots of fun..never too serious.I feel sorry for the person who wants to play music as a full time career it is a very tough gig.

cipher

Is this the next big thing, or a joke?

Wow ... this debate just never dies does it?  I'm 57.  I'm third generation musician, actor, radio/tv personality, author, venue/bar/restaurant owner/manager.  The past 12 years I've built a serviceable business in music as an artist, consultant for venues and artists, festival producer/talent advisor and/or buyer and .... more .... I do not sit still long. 

I know many many musicians who make a living doing music.  So the idea that it cannot and does not happen is spurious at best and ficticious in the least. 

Some points:

How can you be successful without making money ? - Money follows success; success does not follow money. 

Free Market=Payment for goods. - this is false. 

A free market is defined as a market "...where government does not intervene in an attempt to regulate supply, demand, and prices."  It has nothing to do with payment for goods.

Private & corporate gigs pay quite well, but local bar & club work gets horrible pay. -

I cannot recall a time as a musician where this has not been true, and for good reasons. 

I have been responsible for the music in 3 venues over the past 12 years, as well as 3 festivals - one of which books over 100 acts who all play for free, voluntarily .. and who ask for the right and who audition to do so, and it is one of the largest events of its kind in the country.  It is now in its 42nd year.

MOST small music venues barely keep their doors open.  A small percentage actually make enough actual profit to keep things going for a couple of decades.  Think of how many music rooms open and close annually in any market.   

As a soundman, booking agent, and/or promoter at these venues, I have now done over 6,000 sets of music and interacted withwell over 2000 acts since 2000.  I have interacted with internationally known acts and baby band garage acts.  I have heard all the stories - and as well I've lived many of them myself on the road as a musician.

Think about your own experiences and those of the people who surround you.  When you go to a bar, odds are you've entered the room with a $20 bill in your pocket.  You pay a $5 cover, drink 2.5 beers on average at (for a good craft) $5, and tip $2.50.  How bout a movie?  Took my grand daughters to a matinee recently; tickets were $32 for 2 adults and 2 kids; concessions were $45.  That's $80 roughly ... $20.  How bout a restuarant?  Average ticket?  $17.50 + $2.50 tip.

Now do the real math.  100 people in the door at a show.  Sales = $1250.  Door = $500. 

Here's my final point:  just because you can scream into a mic and/or hold a guitar around your neck does not mean you are a musician.  There is no established standard for what it means to  be a musician.  Those who can will.  Those who cannot, wont.  THat's life - THAT is the freedom of the market. 

The ethical treatment of musicians?  Really?  Okay ;) 

I say torrenting isn't the enemy - It's The Answer.

Forget about getting a record contract with a corrupt music industry. New bands today need to promote and distribute their songs over a torrent to get the needed exposure First, so they can one day make money with their music. Once they have the exposure ( and with the internet, it can be world wide very quickly- something the local record industry wont do unless you make them millions of dollars) you can then create albums in digital format to sell on your website - bypassing the corrupt music industry entirely. You make the songs, you distribute the songs, you keep control, you make the money. It's that simple.. or as I see it, it can be.